A brief comment about the RoachMap

In a write-up about the two-faced game that State is playing, AP writes today [24 May 2003] under the heading, Sharon Faces Challenge Selling 'Road Map':

Washington sent seemingly conflicting messages Friday to break the diplomatic deadlock, assuring Palestinians there would be no changes in the plan but also announcing that Israel's objections would be taken into account.

There is a Latin saying about those who conduct themselves in the manner Powell is behaving. It goes,

Video meliora, proboque, deteriora sequor.

Translated (whereupon the punch is diluted): "I see the better course and approve of it, yet I pursue the worst". The Romans must have known Powell.

IS THIS WHY SHARON IS BALKING ON ROADMAP?

Pastor J. Grant Swank, Jr., a prolific author of books and articles, sends us this article which we are happy to pass along to you.

Anti-tank explosive bang-big! slashes into Israeli bus on its jaunt from Karni to Netzarim today, Friday. Close to Rafah, border officials blow up 30-kil bomb in a controlled explosion setting. Nine Israelis are injured in the bus explosion, according to DEBKAfile.

Is this why Sharon and Cabinet are hesitant about signing onto the roadmap? It's full of holes and land mines and Palestinian militants hiding out in the pits.

A home in Hebron is guarded by Israeli militia to force out a known terrorist hooked up with the captured Egyptian boat. On board was the Hizballah bomb expert traveling toward to the Gaza Strip.

Is this why Israelis are not willing to pick up pen to sign on to present Middle East peace plans?

The roadmap demands that both sides lay down arms at the same time. Each balks. No wonder. Israel lays down its arms and the terrorists from Arafat's board room lunge forth for the last push of Jews into the Sea. Eh?

The Israeli navy this week got hold of a boat hiding Hizballah terrorists who were headed for big time blow-up trouble in Israel, all under orders from none other than Arafat-the-irrelevant, tee-hee.

Onboard that vessel was Hamad Amara, explosive expert for the Palestinians. He was carrying the formula for secret big-time tank-blow-up explosives. He was on his way to give them, with specific instructions, to Fatah, Hamas and Jihad Islamic militants in Gaza Strip.

The whole affair was overseen by deputy Palestinian navy commander Fathi Razem and Palestinian Authority procurements director Adel el Mughrabi. These were getting their cues from none other than, guess who, Mr. Arafat himself.

No wonder then that Israel will not agree to a 2005 date for Palestinian State realization. Israel will push for that date to be conditional, of course. The condition is that Palestinian terrorists are no more.

And as the world knows from Middle East this-n-that since May 14, 1948, a lot lot lot can happen between now and the year 2005. For sure. Israel is no fool, thank God.

June 1st protest in Central Park

Over 25,000 people are expected to gather in New York's Central Park to protest the US Mid-East road map proposal.

The demonstration is being coordinated by The Israel Concert in The Park Committee and the National Council of Young Israel.

The protest, which urges President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon to "say no to a PLO terror state"is scheduled for June 1 at 3 p.m.

Ronn Torossian, spokesperson for the demonstration, told the Jerusalem Post that the program will be dedicated to the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Torossian stated that honorary guests will include a number of New York elected officials and
leaders of the American Jewish community.

"As New Yorkers, we feel the need to stand up and let the world know on the 55th year of the Anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel that we will not sit silent as the Jewish homeland is in danger," said Dr. Joseph Frager, organizer of The Israel Concert in the Park.

I am hoping this conversation takes place.

I just received a copy of the McGill Report in which Douglas McGill imagines what George W Bush would like to say to the Saudis. It makes for great reading. Here's a couple of paragraphs,

"My fellow Americans, thank God we won in Iraq, because at long last we can begin to extricate ourselves from our lose-lose, co-dependent, morally degrading, and mutually destructive relationship with Saudi Arabia.

"How I hate those photo-op sessions with the Saudi royals. I have to clench my teeth and smile every time, because I know what they're really doing. They're using their billions in oil profits to protect and prolong their corrupt regime. They spend hundreds of millions each year to keep every member of the extended royal Saud family docile in their palaces and their yachts, instead of scheming to take down King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah. MORE

The Roadmap is a reward for terrorism

Reject it.

In a statement, Sharon said, "in view of the U.S. promise" to address Israel's concerns, "we are prepared to accept the steps set out in the road map."

All else is spin. Since this historic “agreement “ between Bush and Sharon, there has been a blizzard of propaganda, spin, and expressions of confidence that Israel would accept, all making it more difficult for Israel to refuse.

Nevertheless, Israel should not accept the Roadmap. Even accepting “the steps set out in the road map” is bad enough. What’s the difference?

The road map essentially is a document that is unfair to Israel and is being imposed on it to strengthen the Palestinian side of the negotiations. The Palestinians were at a great disadvantage in Oslo because they had no bargaining strength and couldn’t get what they wanted. As in labour strife, there always is an option for a strike or arbitration. Having given up the right to strike (violence) and not having the right to ask for arbitration, they opted to break the agreement after they got what they could, and resort to violence.

The road map makes the Quartet the arbitrator and guarantees the Palestinians, not only a state, which Oslo didn’t do, but one that is” viable and sovereign” . I am sure we will hear more about the significance of these words when Israel wants the state to be demilitarized or when the Palestinians want to be guaranteed the right to work in Israel or to there fair share of water. As their population increases faster than Israel’s, they will demand more and more water. This is what they get for giving up violence as a tool or at least saying they give it up. In Oslo, Israel was not committed to offering them a state.

So that is their first reward for terrorism.

The road map gives them two more things without the need to negotiate for them. One, Israel must immediately abandon illegal outposts and stop settlement activity. This is a huge imposition on Israel who wasn’t allowed to negotiate whether they would do it or on what terms. Keep in mind that the growth of settlements and the creation of facts on the ground was the only thing putting real pressure on the Palestinians to make a deal sooner rather than later. Two, the settlement of final borders has to take into account the Saudi Initiative which required ’67 borders, albeit with freely negotiated exchanges of equal value. Once more this is a huge concession being forced on Israel.

In other words two more rewards for terrorism.

Now there may be salvation in accepting the “steps set out” rather than the road map itself. It depends on your definition of steps. If that means “stages”, Israel can live with that even though the last stage is a Palestinian state. Such a limited acceptance keeps Israel free of the implications of the Saudi initiative and other parameters of the map and also of the power of the Quartet. But as I said it all depends if there is such a distinction and it accepts on the steps.

Israel has every right to reject this road map even with the assurances they received. It has every right to demand that the terms of the roadmap be negotiated. They shouldn’t be cowed by the “blizzard” above referred to. The worse that can happen is that Bush will be unhappy and the deal will have to be bettered for Israel.

UPDATE
The New York Times today in an article by Bennett entitled
Sharon Gives Plan for Mideast Peace Qualified Support picks up on the distinction.

The language in Mr. Sharon's announcement — explicitly accepting the "steps" of the plan, not the plan itself or its goals — was no accident, his allies said. Rather than the swift resolution of all disputes sought by the plan, Mr. Sharon wants a long-term "interim solution" before full Palestinian statehood, arguing that it will take many years for the two peoples to learn to live together peacefully.

Men at Work: Update

Over the last few days, IsraPundit has been under construction, in an attempt to speed up loading. By now, you should be able to load the current page within less than 30 seconds.

We are still experiencing problems in retrieving archived articles and linked articles.

We would appreciate readers' feedback on the technical matters noted, especially with regard to load time: has it improved, is it satisfactory, etc. If you write in with this info, please specify the type of connection (56K modem, cable, etc.). Contact me at dt804@yahoo.ca.

Special thanks to our colleague and contributor MICHAEL GLAZER on whose shoulders the burden lies.

Lest we forget

Personalizing the tragedy

Two and a half years ago lethal terror fueled by blind hatred was unleashed upon our people in this sparsely populated region of Northeastern Israel. After the past several weeks of relative calm we thought that the worst was behind us. This illusion was cruelly shattered.

Two dedicated and experienced surgeons; Dr. Doron Koppleman and Dr. Shmuel Yurfost, had worked together in Ha'Emek Medical Center's Surgical 'B' Department since the beginning of the intifada. Together with the accomplished physicians in Ha'Emek's Surgical 'A' Department (led by chief surgeon Dr. Yoel Syphon), as a team they saved countless lives and operated on many of the more than 700 victims who were senselessly struck down. Passing below their skilled hands on the operating tables have been innocent Jews and Arabs, women, children, men, soldiers, the elderly and even some terrorists. Beneath the sterile sheets all humanity is equal and our surgeon's mission in life is to heal.

Yesterday at noon Dr. Koppleman and Dr. Yurfost sat together planning the next day's surgeries. They parted with a handshake, a smile and an Israeli nod of the head. A few hours later, Dr. Yurfost himself was seriously wounded when another suicide murderer blew herself up at the entrance to a shopping mall in Afula - killing 3 and injuring scores of others. When the 48-year-old soft-spoken physician arrived in Ha'Emek's Emergency Room, covered in his own blood, nobody at first even recognized him. Only when he spoke and asked about his eyes did the horrible reality become apparent. Our beloved surgeon lost one eye and the fate of his other eye is in question.

His colleague and friend, Dr. Koppleman, was aware of the ensuing tragedy when he was operating on the young woman security guard who blocked the path of the murderer. For the next eleven hours Dr. Koppleman struggled to mend her broken body, working through the tears, tears for Dr.Yurfost, for the young woman and for our people.

She Knew What Questions to Ask

Ha'Emek Medical Center, Israel's Hospital of Peace, is still reeling from yet another terror atrocity what we have come to refer to as mass-casualty events. Yesterday afternoon a suicide killer struck at the entrance to Afula's shopping mall, taking with her 3 innocent lives and sending more than 70 injured to our hospital. One of the most critically injured was Hadar Gitlin, the 21-year-old female security guard who blocked the terrorist's path with her own body at the entrance to the mall. This is her story, as told to me by her mother.

It was Hadar's second day at her new job as a security guard. Having recently joined the swelling ranks of the unemployed, the young woman could not bear the thought of sitting at home doing nothing. The company responsible for the mall's security needed women as well as men and Hadar eagerly took the job. Her mother, Sarah, suggested that she look for something less threatening, but Hadar was confident and enthusiastic to work.

Hadar responsibly closed her mobile phone during work hours and she was to finish her shift at 16:00. When Sarah could not reach her earlier that day, she left Hadar a message saying that their car was parked close by and for her to drive it home. Hadar was to be relieved at 16:00 by another guard, but due to an unforeseen delay she needed to stay on for a while longer. At 17:00 the terrorist struck.

At 17:10 her mother heard on television the first report about an attack in Afula. Knowing that Hadar finished work at 16:00 she was not particularly worried. When there was no answer on her daughter's mobile phone she was sure that was due to weak batteries and that Hadar was on her way home. They live about twenty minutes from Afula. When at 18:00. Sarah had still not heard from her daughter, she asked a friend to see if their car was still parked in Afula. It was and just after that they heard on the radio that a female security guard was killed in the attack.

Mother and father were then together and desperately seeking information at the scene of the bombing. The special police task force set up at the mall had no definitive facts and someone then told them that they heard that 'a woman' had been rushed to Rambam hospital in Haifa. When they spoke with Rambam by phone they were told that their daughter was not there. That is when they came to Ha'Emek to face their fate.

A social worker accompanied the distraught parents to a private room and showed them a ring that was taken from a female victim who was the in surgery. It looked familiar but they could not be sure. Any identifying clothing or papers did not survive the blast. At 19:00 a friend escorted them to the waiting area outside the operating room and volunteered to go in and see if Hadar was there. When the chief surgeon, Dr. Doron Koppleman, heard that the parents had arrived he immediately went out to speak with them.

During the next 10 hours of surgery, Dr. Koppleman periodically came out to update Sarah and her husband as to Hadar's condition. Her mother seemed to know exactly what questions to ask and focused on the most critical aspects of her daughter's health. They trusted and believed in the gray haired surgeon with warm sympathetic eyes.

At 05:00 this morning with the highly complex operation completed, a tired Dr. Koppleman sat with them in the corridor. Hadar's condition was critical and she was on her way to our Intensive Care Unit. He was curious to know how Hadar's mother knew what questions to ask. Her unemotional answer was, "In 1995 Hadar's older sister, Mor, was critically wounded in the devastating double terrorist bombing at the Beit Lid intersection. You see, doctor, I've been here before".

Larry Rich, Ha'Emek Medical Center

Acceptance of Roadmap or of steps in Roadmap

Fog, smoke and mirrors

Many of us have written about the many faults of the Roadmap including its destination, (Palestine), its implementation, (Arafat will police Arafat), and its monitors, (no friends of Israel), and its premises, (the Saudi Initiative). Now its time to address the mechanism for making it acceptable.

The apparent deal between Bush and Sharon appears to be an amendment that is not an amendment and an agreement where there is no agreement. The Roadmap is beyond repair.

Dr Aaron Lerner of IMRA calls it a black day refering to Sunday when the Israeli Cabinet will be asked to approve it. His remarks are worth reading.

Wishful thinking Times?

According to the New York Times:

Mr. Sharon has told the Bush administration that he cannot take several of the steps the Americans want, particularly on endorsing the plan, without provoking a cabinet crisis. Many cabinet members are conservative opponents of anything that would create a Palestinian state.

A diplomat knowledgeable about the negotiations said some in the Bush administration think that it would be better for Mr. Sharon's cabinet to break apart so that he could then form a unity government with the Labor Party.

Of course the Times doesn't report if those hoping for a national unity government are senior officials or simply State Department professionals who consider the road map to be progress. However the Washington Post gave a slightly different view of things...

In an effort to avoid a deadlock in the Middle East peace process, the Bush administration has acceded to Israel's demands that a U.S.-backed peace plan be subjected to significant revisions as it is implemented, a move that quickly brought a public acceptance of the plan's broad outlines by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

In winning Sharon's support, the administration relented on its insistence of no changes in the peace plan, known as the "road map." The White House issued a statement today by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice saying the United States recognizes Israel's concerns and will seek to address them.

"The roadmap was presented to the Government of Israel with a request from the President that it respond with contributions to this document to advance true peace," Powell and Rice said. "The United States Government received a response from the Government of Israel, explaining its significant concerns about the roadmap.

Whereas the NY Times has it that the administration - or unnamed officials - wish to see a more pliant Israeli government; the Washington Post reports that the admistration is willing to consider the Sharon government's objections in order to keep the road map. I realize that these two views are not necessarily incompatible. But the emphasis of the Times article is telling.

Maybe I'm not being generous to the Times, accounts of the cabinet decision have Sharon saying that it was necessary to accept the road map in order to avoid friction with Washington.
Cross posted on the IsraPundit and David's Israel Blog

Where's the Muslim Debate?

Some Muslim groups in the U.S. have launched a campaign to block the appointment of Daniel Pipes to the board of the United States Institute of Peace. The USIP is a taxpayer-funded institution with a mandate to promote "peaceful resolutions of international conflicts." Mr. Pipes, a Bush administration nominee, is a scholar of Islam and the Middle East and an outspoken critic of militant Islamists.

Although the Washington Post, among others, has editorialized against his appointment, the controversy should be seen in the context of the civil war of ideas in the Muslim world -- between those who wish to reconcile adherence to their faith with modernity and those seeking the restoration of a mythical glorious past. The Pipes nomination has become a test of strength for those Islamists who wish to paint the war against terrorism as a war against Islam. If they can rally American Muslims to their cause, they would be able to limit the scope of debate about Islamic issues within parameters set by them. That objective doesn't serve the interests of the U.S. or of Muslims.

Many Islamic revivalists, or Islamists, have turned to terrorism in an effort to destroy the West's military, economic, cultural and technological domination. Above all, they resent and resist the free flow of ideas within the Muslim community and with the West. In dealing with terrorism, the U.S. cannot afford to ignore the ideas -- and the lack of openness in Muslim discourse -- that generate terrorist thinking. While his detractors label Mr. Pipes an "Islamophobe," the tussle is less about Daniel Pipes and more about the terms on which the U.S. should engage the world's Muslims, including many American citizens. Mr. Pipes is probably not always right in all his arguments. As a Muslim, I disagree with several of his policy prescriptions. But his views are neither racist nor extremist; they fall within the bounds of legitimate scholarly debate.

Muslims have suffered a great deal from their tendency to shun discussion of ideas, especially those relating to history and religion and their impact on politics. Hard-liners won't tolerate questioning of their views that Islam has nothing to learn from "unbelievers" or that Muslims have a right to subdue other faiths, by force if necessary. The notion of an Islamic polity and state -- supported by extremists, questioned by moderates -- is also an issue which must be aired. Promoting such debate should be an essential element of U.S. engagement with the Islamic world. That objective is better served by including and debating the ideas of intellectuals such as Mr. Pipes than by attacking them.

Americans are keen to understand why some people hate them enough to want to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up while trying to kill civilians. But similar introspection is missing among Muslims. Shouldn't they be asking themselves why it's difficult for them to criticize terrorism without fearing that they'll be labeled anti-Islamic? Just as the U.S. needs to understand why Muslims resent its power, Muslims must figure out why they cannot win America's trust and respect.

Islam's external enemies, and their real and perceived conspiracies, are the focus of most discourse in the Muslim world. Colonial rule and, since then, injustices meted out to Muslims under non-Muslim occupation in several countries are real issues that need to be addressed. But the failure of Muslim societies -- in particular the leaders -- to embrace education, expand economies or to innovate cannot be attributed solely to outside factors. The root causes also lie in the fear of some Muslims to embrace reasoned debate and intellectual exchange, lest this openness somehow dilute the purity of their beliefs.

The campaign against Mr. Pipes is an example of this tendency to scuttle discussion. Muslims who disagree with his views should respond to him with arguments of their own. Slandering him might help polarize secular and Islamist Muslims, but it won't raise the level of discourse about Islamic issues. It's time for Muslim leaders in the U.S. to break the pattern of agitation that has characterized Muslim responses to the West.

WHITHER THE ROADMAP?

The Center for Security Policy will begin running television advertisements starting with the FoxNews Sunday program this weekend urging that an end to Palestinian violence be a precondition to U.S. recognition of a Palestinian state. This is, of course, precisely what President Bush had in mind when he unveiled his vision for Mideast peace on 24 June 2002. On that occasion, he declared: "The United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure." (Emphasis added.)

Unfortunately, this eminently sensible precondition was not part of the so-called "Roadmap" Mr. Bush was induced to adopt at the urging of four entities with long records of hostility towards Israel -- the United Nations, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the U.S. State Department. That plan, formally presented to the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority on 1 May, would establish by the end of 2003 "provisional boundaries for a Palestinian State" -- whether or not its leaders had "engage[d] in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle[d] their infrastructure"!

The Center's ad campaign is especially timely in light of developments today. Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice issued an unusual joint statement announcing that, in light of "significant concerns" the Israeli government has expressed about the Roadmap, "the United States shares the view of the Government of Israel that these are real concerns, and will address them fully and seriously in the implementation of the Roadmap to fulfill the President's vision of June 24, 2002."

A similar message was evidently imparted by President Bush himself in a phone conversation to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Apparently moved by these assurances, Mr. Sharon said, according to the New York Times web-site, that "he was 'prepared to accept' the Road map...and would present it to his cabinet for approval on Sunday." The Times made clear the Bush Administration's view that "The carefully worded [Powell-Rice] statement is a result of a negotiated agreement [between the Israelis and] Washington and is considered a significant step forward in the Middle East peace effort."

In the wake of these developments, Center President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. observed: "It is hard to believe that Prime Minister Sharon would embrace this clearly defective Roadmap in the absence of an explicit commitment from the President to change its central defect - the elimination of Mr. Bush's visionary precondition of an end to terror before a Palestinian state could be recognized. Yet, it would appear that he has done so under intense U.S. pressure since the New York Times reports that Secretary of State Powell insisted in Paris today that, notwithstanding his joint statement with Dr. Rice and the President's promises to Mr. Sharon, 'This does not require us to change the road map.'"

Gaffney added: "The Center for Security believes that the Roadmap does need to be changed - to ensure that it conforms with the President's stated vision for peace in the Mideast and, more importantly, to give it any hope of actually advancing that goal. The Center's television ads will point out the inconsistency between what Mr. Bush seeks and what is being done in his name so as to prevent this Roadmap from becoming a formula for an assisted suicide for the Jewish State, and a disaster for vital American interests in Israel's survival as a secure and self-reliant strategic outpost for freedom."

A contribution to the PR debate, by Celia

In connection with our debate on Israel's PR (see articles posted on Tursday and today), I received the submission below by e-mail. The letter is particular important because it highlights one of the major problems with pro-Israel advocacy: Israel fails to make her principal arguments known. The fate of the Jewish people who fled Arab lands should never have left the consciousness of people, and the same can be said for hundreds of similar points, big and small. Just the other day Israel captured yet another arms ship - the item has disappeared from the news even before it was reported; and who remembers the Karine A, or the sister-ship that was caught after the Karine A, as reported by ha'Aretz on May 17, 2002?

And now, Celia's letter:

I do feel that Israel has allowed the Palestinians to set the agenda and dictate the terminology of the conflict. The only way we will get out of this box is by shifting the focus to the plight of the Jews from Arab countries. This issue is hardly raised at all by Israel advocates. The following three main myths, peddled by the left and Palestinian sympathisers, can be quite easily exploded with reference to the plight of the Jews from Arab lands.

MYTH 1. That Israel is a state overwhelmingly made up of European and American Jews who moved into Palestine and displaced Middle Eastern natives.

The truth:

*More than half Israel's Jewish population are refugees from the Arab world and their descendants.

*Israel absorbed a number of Jewish refugees equal to, or in excess of, the Pal refugees. Some 900,000 refugees in all never received international recognition; nor did they get any compensation for their confiscated property. The Jewish refugees were displaced, not by war, but by a deliberate policy of harassment, intimidation and persecution.

*The Jews are the authentic natives of the Middle East, some communities going back 2,500 years. The Arabs are the interlopers, conquering the region as late as the 7th century. The loss of the Jews' rich heritage is immeasurable. Until their expulsion they made a huge contribution to the Arab world, culturally, economically and to scholarship.

*The 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees can only be considered in the context of the rights of the Jewish refugees. Since these Jews have no desire to return to despotisms where they were oppressed, the Palestinian demand is a non-starter. The world must recognise that what took place was an exchange of refugee
populations, as has taken place in countless other conflict situations.

MYTH 2. Historically Jews were well-treated in the Arab world. The current Arab hostility stems from the current conflict.

The truth:

*Although the Ottoman empire welcomed the Jews and many flourished in a tolerant atmosphere, there were sporadic outbreaks of violence against the Jews. Many regimes sympathised with the Nazis and consequently mistreated their Jews. For instance, a Nazi-inspired riot in 1941 against the Jews of Baghdad resulted in the deaths of 169 Jews.

*However successful the Jews were always 'dhimmi' - second class citizens before Islamic law. They were at the mercy of their rulers.

MYTH 3. Israel derives its moral legitimacy solely from the European persecution of the Jews, namely the Holocaust. The Arabs have been 'made to pay the price' for European antisemitism because Israel was created 'at their expense'.

The truth:

*Israel is just as much a by-product of Arab persecution. (Arguably, such is the treatment of ethnic and religious minorities in Muslim Arab states since they achieved independence, that, even without the conflict over Israel, the Jews would sooner or later have been driven out). Arab antisemitism has as much created the need for a haven for the Jews as has European antisemitism. The Arabs must face up to their responsibilities towards their Jews and admit that their appalling treatment of their Jews has created the need for a Jewish haven. It is entirely natural for this Jewish haven to be in the Middle East where the Jews have always lived.

Conclusion: The real tragedy or 'Naqba' of the Middle East is the 'ethnic cleansing' of the Arab world of its Jews.

Virtual March On The White House

The National Unity Coalition for Israel has launched a campaign to stop the current course of the so-called roadmap.

ACTION

1. Read the press release below.

2. Send a fax (or letter or email) to President Bush expressing your views on the "road map". Israel should not be asked to take any steps that compromise its security in any way until the Palestinian Authority has taken at least two concrete steps: (1) disarmed and arrested Palestinian Arab terrorists and (2) ended incitement to violence against Israelis, Jews, and Americans.

A "cease fire", which only allows terrorists to prepare for future attacks and can be reversed at any time, is totally inadequate. Under Oslo, Israel undertook concrete steps and got only violence in return. This mistake must not be repeated.

CONTACT INFO
President George W. Bush
Email: president@whitehouse.gov
Link: mailto:president@whitehouse.gov
Fax: 202-456-2461, 202-456-2883
Voice: 202-456-1111 (comments, M-F, 9 AM - 5 PM) 202-456-1414 (switchboard)
Web: http://www.whitehouse.gov/, http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

PRESS RELEASE

President Bush, Please Stop the Road Map!

ANNOUNCING

A Virtual March On The White House - A Grassroots Blitz to Washington

The National Unity Coalition for Israel announced on Sunday, May 18, 2003, at an Interfaith Zionist Summit in Washington, D.C., A Virtual March on the White House. At the Summit, organized by Zionist House and co-sponsored by the Coalition, participants expressed their frustration that there has been no organized opportunity for grassroots Americans to express their apprehension about important elements of the Road Map that would alter US policy toward Israel. In response to the "railroad tactics" being used, the National Unity Coalition for Israel has begun an organized information initiative, termed A Virtual March on the White House to express the concerns and objections of the President's core conservative constituency.

Leaders of the Summit expressed their view that the devastating toll of terrorism by 5 separate terrorist attacks over the weekend is proof positive that Palestinian-Arabs do not want real peace. Esther Levens, CEO & Founder of the Coalition, said, "The Road Map is one more deceptive "agreement" toward the basic Arab and Palestinian-Arab goal of eradicating Israel. Now, with more deaths, the Road Map has been deferred, at least for a short time while the dead are buried. If the Road Map is implemented by US endorsement, the next step will be to bury all of Israel."

The suicide attacks in Israel occurred at the same time the Summit was being held. As Christian and Jewish world leaders were seeking to unify support for the preservation of the biblical and historical rights of Israel, radical Islamic Jihad continued to wreak death and destruction on the ancient Jewish homeland.

Levens said today, "We simply must gain our President's attention by bombarding the White House with our concerns about the obvious negative effect of the Road Map on genuine peace in the Middle East."

National Unity Coalition for Israel, Founded in 1991, is the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one
common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel.

Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!

Contact: Esther Levens, National Unity Coalition for Israel, 913-432-7900, (also available for interviews)

US Intellegence had a conflict of interest

John Loftus' new article on Jonathan Pollard in Moment Magazine, has implications for the Saudi lawsuit which he is presently pursuing on behalf of the victims of 9/11. Mr. Loftus would appreciate our help in distributing the following

PRESS RELEASE:

Classified Pollard file supports 9/11 coverup of Saudi ties to Usama bin Laden

Noted terrorism expert, John Loftus, will publish an article in the forthcoming edition of Moment Magazine which reveals highly classified information about Jonathan Pollard, a US Naval intelligence analyst who spied for Israel and who is now in prison serving a life sentence.

Loftus's article proves that Pollard was completely innocent of the major charges against him, namely, that Pollard leaked the names of US spies behind the Iron Curtain. The second, and most controversial part of the article explains, that, if the Government knows he is innocent, why is Pollard still in prison. Pollard gave Israel the 1984 "blue book" listing Arab intelligence agents, including Usama Bin Laden.

Pollard's file shows that, contrary to what Congress was told, US intelligence knew perfectly well that they, the US intelligence agents were laundering money through Saudi Arabia to fund known terrorists in their drive to oust the Russians from Afghanistan. To protect themselves from charges of negligence, senior members of US intelligence covered up the Saudi-Al Qaeda connection right up to 9/11.

These revelations will add fuel to Senator Graham's campaign to make public the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee on 9/11. Loftus' article supplies many of the missing links that explain why we knew so much and did so little about Islamic terrorism.

Atty. John J. Loftus, 727-821-5227, fax 727-894-1801, email LoftusHome@cs.com, website: www.john-loftus.com

Terrorists sure know how to hurt their own people and further damage an economy

Terror fears force Baz blockbuster out

Well, Nicole is after all from Australia, so this too is good for the home folks. This story found via Instapundit at timblair The recent Morocco attack brought this venue change about

Fears that terrorists could target Nicole Kidman and Leonardo DiCaprio in Morocco have forced Baz Luhrmann to move his big budget epic Alexander the Great to Australia.

The shift in locations is huge news for the Australian film industry and economy as Alexander the Great's budget is reportedly worth more than $US200 million ($A306.16 million).

Thousands of jobs would be created as the film requires huge sets and thousands of extras.

"Unless the situation changes in five or six months any important American actor could be a target," Alexander the Great's producer Dino De Laurentiis (Laurentiis) told today's edition of Daily Variety.

"That is a risk I cannot take."

The Australian film industry could benefit more from unrest in Africa and the Middle East.

Numerous epics are also scheduled to shoot in Morocco but could now be looking elsewhere, including Gladiator 2, Tripoli and director Oliver Stone's rival Alexander the Great film.

The next instalment of Star Wars and Indiana Jones were to be shot in Morocco but the Hollywood studios are examining new locations.

Luhrmann and Laurentiis had built a studio in Morocco to house their film but the location was just 500km away from the city of Casablanca where 41 civilians were killed in suicide attacks last week.

Luhrmann plans to start shooting digital footage of the film in November and begin rehearsals with DiCaprio in January.

While Kidman would obviously be pleased with the shift from Morocco to her homeland, DiCaprio also likely wouldn't mind spending months in Australia.

Last year in an interview with AAP to promote his film Catch Me If You Can, DiCaprio scolded his director Steven Spielberg and co-star Tom Hanks when they admitted they have never been to Australia.

"I can't believe you guys haven't been to Australia," DiCaprio said to Spielberg and Hanks.

"I've been there twice. I just can't believe you've never been there."
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/23/1053585676259.html

Will Israel accept the Roadmap?

Read all news articles carefully. A statement released by Sharon's office said:

"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has informed the United States that the state of Israel is prepared to accept the steps prescribed in the road map and that the matter will be brought before the Cabinet for approval."

This is a far cry from saying they will accept the Roadmap. Watch for the difference. Most news articles miss the distinction and assume they are the same.

To my mind, the steps are mere technicalities. What I didn't like were the parameters within which the final issues must be settled. They included the Saudi "Peace Plan".

Now that Israel is being forced to "accept " the Plan, I haven't noticed that Mazen's cabinet has accepted the Plan. We are just told that the "Palestinians" have accepted the Plan with reservations.

Hamas rebuffs Abbas, vows to continue terrorism

There will be, I suspect, a power struggle both within the PA and Hamas v. PA

Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip have rejected a request by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to suspend terrorist attacks on Israel.

Abbas met in his office in Gaza City Thursday night with a number of Hamas leaders including Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Mahmoud Zahhar, and Ismail Haniyeh and urged them to accept a temporary cease-fire. It was Abbas's first meeting with representatives of Hamas since he took office three weeks ago.

The meeting was attended by PA Minister for Security Affairs Muhammad Dahlan and other senior PA security officials in the Gaza Strip.
Abbas said he summoned the Hamas leaders to persuade them to suspend terrorist attacks against Israel. But the Hamas officials quickly announced that they had turned down the request. [more]

FOUAD AJAMI WRITES ON THE ROADMAP

Instapundit sums up Ajami's perceptive piece, the entirety of which can be found at USnews.com

It may be the proper thing for America to take up the matter of Israel and the Palestinians; it may be a debt owed the stalwart British Prime Minister Tony Blair. But we should know the Arab world for what it is today and entertain no grand illusions about the gratitude the road map would deliver in Palestinian and Arab streets. We buy no friendship in Arab lands with pro-Palestinian diplomacy; we ward off no anti-American terrorism. There is no possibility the rancid anti-Americanism of Hosni Mubarak's Egypt would be assuaged with a big push for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. The highest religious authority of that land, Sheik al Azhar Muhammad Tantawi, recently called the American-led coalition's effort against Saddam a "crusading war" and said that Muslims everywhere were obliged to take up arms against the "invaders." This kind of sentiment can never be stilled with a diplomatic effort on behalf of the Palestinians.

The Palestinian issue has always been an exuse -- or a tool -- for distraction, not the real key to settling down the region. We may have to wait until the last dictator is strangled with the entrails of the last mullah for that

The “Cycle of Violence” Fallacy

The Arab-Israeli conflict is often framed as a "cycle of violence." A strong Israeli policy against Palestinian terrorism will only spawn more attacks against Israel, goes the logic. Conversely, if only Israel made unilateral concessions to the Palestinians, it would find a partner for peace. This is the conventional wisdom. And it is wrong.

This past weekend, for example, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon met with his Palestinian counterpart Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) for the highest-ranking talks between Israel and the Palestinians since the second Intifada began almost three years ago. Sharon pledged to improve the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian-dominated West Bank and Gaza, at which point Mazen declared, "Palestinians promise to make a genuine and real effort to stop terror." This is precisely the type of peaceful chain reaction that the prevailing "cycle of violence" formula envisages.

Or is it? Just a few hours later, a Hamas terrorist blew himself up on an Israeli commuter bus, killing seven, wounding 20, and throwing this theory on its head. The terrorist attack was a response not to an Israeli incursion into Palestinian territory, as the "cycle of violence" theory hypothesizes, but to the kind of Israeli overtures that terrorism apologists repeatedly champion. In fact, for rejectionist terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the timing of the blast could not have been better. In addition to his get-together with Mazen, Sharon was slated in the coming days to meet with President Bush to discuss implementing the road map. According to Bush-administration officials, Israel had hinted that it was prepared to ease up on closures, checkpoints, work permits, and other restrictions on Palestinians, as well as release large numbers of Palestinian prisoners and detainees. The meeting was being billed as the most important between Israel and the U.S. since the July 2000 Camp David conference.

Of course, it was Camp David that demonstrated the speciousness of the "cycle of violence" theory. For a combination of political and strategic reasons, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the house to Yasser Arafat: Israel would withdraw from 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and 97 percent of the West Bank, dismantle 63 isolated settlements, and make Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem the capital of a new Palestinian state, with the Palestinians maintaining control over their holy places and having "religious sovereignty" over the contested Temple Mount. Revisionist claims to the contrary, Israel offered to create a "viable" Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. "Cycle of violence" believers predicted a commensurate Palestinian reduction of terror.[more]

U.S. Says Sharon Is Set to Endorse Bush's Peace Plan

Though this may startle some readers, note the words " qualified endorsement"

WASHINGTON, May 22 — The White House has reached a tentative agreement for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel to make, for the first time, a qualified endorsement of the Bush administration's phased plan for the creation of a Palestinian state, administration officials said today.

White House officials also said today that President Bush planned to meet next month in the Middle East with Mr. Sharon and the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas.

The endorsement, which could be a breakthrough in the Middle East peace effort, was hammered out on Tuesday with Mr. Sharon's chief of staff, Dov Weisglass.

The wording of Mr. Sharon's endorsement of the peace plan, known as the road map, was not disclosed. Mr. Weisglass, Mr. Sharon's top aide, was due in Israel today for meetings on how to present the endorsement to the Israeli cabinet, American officials said.[more]

We Do Not Do Anything Without His Approval

TROUBLE IN THE HOLY LAND: New PM says Arafat still in charge

Despite being sidelined by the U.S. and Israel, Yasser Arafat is still very much in charge, according to the Palestinian Authority's new Prime Minister.

"Arafat is at the top of the [Palestinian] Authority. He's the man to whom we refer, regardless of the American or Israeli view of him," said Mahmoud Abbas in an interview with Egypt's semi-official al Mussawar weekly, according to Reuters.

Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, said Arafat's stamp of approval should precede any political action.

Abu Mazen, appointed by Arafat last month, is regarded by the "quartet" facilitating the "road map" to peace as a moderate reformer in contrast to Arafat, who is viewed as unwilling to stop terrorism.

The road map is a phased plan drafted by the U.S., European Union, United Nations and Russia that requires the PA in the first stage to implement administrative reforms and fight terror. The plan calls eventually for a Palestinian state followed by a final-status agreement addressing issues such as borders, Jerusalem and refugees.

In the interview, Mazen said he "will not allow any serious differences between Arafat and me."

"There may be day-to-day differences," he told the Egyptian weekly, according to Reuters, "but there will be no serious problems that lead to 'divorce.'"

Noting most Palestinians and Arabs regard Arafat as the symbol of the struggle for independence, Abu Mazen vowed he would not travel abroad until Arafat also was allowed full freedom of movement.

Meanwhile, Arafat has issued a "presidential decree" removing the regional governors from the authority of the Interior Ministry to his own office, reported the Israeli daily Ha'aretz.

PA sources, according to Ha'aretz, say the decision Wednesday was aimed at undermining Abu Mazen and Security Affairs Minister Muhammad Dahlan, the de facto interior minister in the new PA cabinet.

Most of the 14 governors are Arafat loyalists who returned with him from Tunis in 1994, Ha'aretz said.

"Arafat wants to make sure that his men will not be thrown out by Abbas and Dahlan," one source told the Israeli paper. "By retaining control over the governors, Arafat is actually sending a message to Dahlan and Abbas to the effect that he is still the boss."

There is a spectre haunting Europe: Israel might apply for admission to the EU

Israel in the EU

This piece presents a fuller exploration of a recent post which suggested that Israel might apply for admission to the EU. What are the ramifications? The pros and cons of such a course of action? How will an anti-semitic, arab-filled Europe react to a request to join?

Israel hasn't actually submitted an application to the European Union, or made any formal declarations demonstrating their intent. What this amounts to is the high-level gossip one picks up from the ambassador cocktail parties that journalists are now and again privy to. Nonetheless it makes for a good story.

Since there has been no official statement of interest, there is of course no official EU reaction either, although some members of the largely uninfluential and unimportant European Parliament have signalled reciprocal interest in the idea. According to the article, the Italian minister who was most vocally interested was a member of the Transnational Radical Party, clearly not representative of the opinions of the powerful or influential.

The largest concern for the European Union, obviously, would be security. Admission of Israel would amount to an acceptance of some level of collective responsibility in protecting Israel, and brokering peace between Israel and its neighbors in the event of renewed conflict. This is an area that Europe has been loathe to get into, letting the US assume the responsibility for forcing peace accords between its 'client state' and the Arab states.
....I heard the Russian ambassador to the UK speaking at the London School of Economics, and someone asked him about the prospects of Russia joining the EU. An old Cold Warrior, he laughed and said that for this to happen 'it would be like the EU swallowing the whale.' Israel, while small, modern, and economically advanced, comes with such a large raft of problems the same expression might well apply to their potential accession. But if the prospect of EU membership could transform Eastern Europe in ten years, perhaps the gamble of granting membership would be worth the peace it's capable of creating.[more]

Nightlie

Here's a recent article on my blog about Nightline's recent propaganda on the intifada.

Your unbridled opinion is welcomed and appreciated.

Another contribution to the PR discussion

A reader who requested that his/her name be withheld, has sent the following contribution to the PR discussion. It is being posted with the reader's permission, of course.

I am writing you in response to your recent post on the IsraPundit blog, in which you invite discussion on improving the efficacy of blogosphere leaders in assisting pro-Israel advocacy.

First, I would like to express my appreciation for your initiative in this endeavour. I am a law student at [deleted] and during the past three years, I have been witness to some of the inflammatory anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic rhetoric that has been bandied about not only by the openly partisan Arab/Muslim student groups, but also by
organizations such as the Amnesty and ACLU student outreach groups. In response to one particularly distasteful all-day student-organized symposium on "How Palestine was Stolen", a number of law students -myself included - set up a pro-Israel advocacy group at the law school (the existing Jewish student group declined to deal with
political issues). And yet it feels like slicing water - or rolling a boulder up a hill, only to see it roll back down time and again.

I am glad people like you are exploring new ways of shaping public opinion, because the existing methods do not seem to be working effectively.

Turning to your questions:

1. - What is your assessment of the current status of pro-Israel advocacy?
2. - What can we, bloggers, e-mailers, and blog readers, do to help in the immediate and short term?
3. - What can we do to improve co-ordination and co-operation among bloggers with the object of getting the word out?
4. - What can we do to include non-bloggers, such as organizations and institutions?


1. My assessment of the current status of pro-Israel advocacy is that it is very effective among the top political circles (Senate, House, White House), unimaginative with respect to "John Q Public", and totally lacking in traction among the liberal intelligentsia. The importance of this last group is that it supplies many of the civil servants who play a crucial role in shaping the information and policy-setting tools of top political decision-makers; witness the impact of State department civil servants on Secretary Powell's worldview. In addition, this group plays an important part in establishing the norms of public discourse, as reflected in the media, in academia and among prominent NGOs.

What causes the problem?

I believe the problem stems from hijacked rhetoric. It's a psychological linkage. I say "copy machine", you think "Xerox". "Intifada" - "liberation struggle". "West Bank" - "occupied territory". "Settlements" - "illegal". Of course the rhetoric is a fraud, and top politicians are paid to have long conversations with pro-Israel advocates, who explain to them the real situation and ultimately undo the damage done by the rhetoric. Unfortunately, most Americans do not devote a lot of thinking time to world affairs - so
first impressions are critical. The hijacked rhetoric is damaging precisely there - in first impressions. The stark picture of Israeli tank and Palestinian youth. The context explains why Israel is justified in sending in the tanks, but most Americans don't stick around to listen to the context.

This does not explain the intellectuals, however, since they do spend time thinking about these issues. Here, I think the matter is more one of cognitive dissonance - refusal to accept facts that contradict one's pre-existing world view. I think intellectuals are more vulnerable to cognitive dissonance for a number of socio-psychological reasons having to do with status and hierarchy in the academic world and which I won't go into here.

2. Response: shift the rhetoric. Remember how some folks tried to insert the term "homicide bomber" into mainstream discourse (and reaped ridicule for their trouble)? That is the right instinct, but it has to be done consistently across platforms. Pick terms that mislead or deceive, replace them with neutral terms, use the neutral terms ubiquitously, especially in well-written articles that get published in mainstream publications. At the moment, if someone talks to me about the "occupied territories", I don't uusually bother to correct the person (technically, "occupation" refers to territory taken from another state, but neither Egypt nor Jordan had legitimate claims to the disputed territories in the first place, so they are in an anomalous legal status best referred to as "disputed territories"). However, if I constantly encountered the term "disputed territories" in reading blogs, the use of the term "occupied territories" might be sufficiently jarring to cause me to do a doubletake, and correct the speaker. More importantly, it is vital to get the message across to the "average American" that there is a legitimate alternative rhetoric that is used consistently by a large and well-educated "minority" (that would be us, even though on actual numbers we may well be a majority), and that doesn't just crop up occasionally in one of Secretary Rumsfeld's off-the-cuff remarks. We need to embolden people to object to the use of misleading terms, or at least to question their use. Injecting the proper terms into the public discourse is the best way to accomplish this.

(I can point you to a number of studies showing how silent majorities are often cowed into accepting the opinions of a minority, thinking that the minority really represents a near-consensus; but once a couple of vocal constituencies speak out, the spell is broken and the majority asserts itself. I'm not sure how much you want or need this social-science academic validation, but let me know if you want me to send you the details).

Orwell was brilliantly right about the importance of language in shaping political discussion. It is easy for many Americans to feel a knee-jerk resentment at Israel for failing to "freeze" "illegal settlements" in the "occupied territories" when these threaten "Palestinian self-determination". Recast the issue as pressuring the Israeli government to prevent population growth in Israeli towns and villages on the 20% of the disputed territories that would not be an obstacle to the viability of a Palestinian state, and maybe Israel's position doesn't seem so unreasonable.

3. Improving cooperation/coordination: Obviously, frequent communication is key. How about an e-mail list circulating among the main pro-Israel bloggers? Or perhaps a bloggers' blog - on which only the accredited bloggers would post and comment but which, if you are feeling generous, the public at large would be able to read. (The Protocols of the Elders of pro-Zionist Blogs?). You could start by initiating threads for different propaganda terms, and use those threads to reach a consensus on proper terms. E.g. "Palestinians" in scare quotes, or Palestinian Arabs, or just leave it as plain Palestinians? West Bank, or Judea and Samaria? Consistency is very, very important. Using different terms for the same concept undermines the credibility of an "alternative" rhetoric.

4. On including non-bloggers: There are a number of wonderful NGOs out there, ranging from MEMRI to CAMERA to the ICT to the various elements of the pro-Israeli lobby in the US and many more. Don't ask how they can help you - ask how you can help them. You can help them by providing free publicity, so they can use their all-too-few
dollars on research rather than marketing. You took exactly the right position by decrying the lack of publicity for the Zionist Leadership Summit.

Gather the main bloggers; establish websites for different regions/cities; invite pro-Israel NGOs to submit their events to those single-purpose websites (e.g. the Zionist Leadership Summit would be submitted to the Washington website); and have the "regular" blogs provide blurbs and links to the specialized event-announcement websites (as well as the websites of the sponsoring NGO) prior to the event.

Have the regional websites set up so they can register e-mails into a mailing list (for economy of scale purposes; we don't want every "regular" blog to set up its own mailing lists of Washington-residents, NY-residents, SF-residents, etc.). Have room for comments on the regional websites - maybe even set them up as blogs - so people who go to the event can discuss it later, generating "buzz" and perhaps motivating other people to join the mailing list.

There is another type of non-blogger out there you should open channels to: authors. This means media columnists, sympathetic academics, and other pro-Israel public persons who shape language (umm, William Safire? :)); people who testify before Congress, and whose words are permanently scribed in the public record. If people like Joseph Farah, David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, etc., buy in to your attempt to shift the terms of discourse, and start publishing using uniform terminology, the campaign to un-hijack our political language from pro-Arab distortions will be boosted immensely.

I don't think these suggestions will fix everything that is wrong with Israeli PR, but I do think they represent what blogs are best suited for. You all have day jobs - unlike an NGO's salaried employee or full-time volunteer, you aren't going to go to Gaza to do some hard-line investigative journalism. You aren't going to film documentaries of interviews with IDF soldiers or victims of terror. Your main tool is your ability to communicate with a lot of people; that means you can influence language, and you can provide links to information that other people gather.

Ping-Pong Undiplomacy

James Taranto notes with his usual wry humor

"Both Saudi and Yemeni table tennis players forfeited their matches rather than compete against an Israeli at the world championships in Paris, a sporting snub that might turn out to be just the first of many," the Associated Press reports.

What a brilliant synecdoche. It sums up beautifully more than half a century of history, during which Arab rulers have seized almost every available occasion to forfeit their own people's peace, freedom, prosperity, self-respect and lives--all to spite Israel. for full story, see http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/5909801.htm

If the Palestinians Want a State, Let Them Earn It."

Michael Harty writing in FrontPageMag, resents how the US keeps funding the Palestinians and keeps helping them yet are being repaid in abuse and terror. It is time to let them suffer the consequences of their choices.

That’s gratitude for you. We’ve provided over six billion American dollars to the Palestinians, yet they continue to insult us after all that assistance. And where is the money? They take our money in one hand, and then give us the finger with the other?

ZOA Petition Against the "Roadmap"

Dear President Bush:

We are deeply troubled by the proposal, in your 'Road Map' plan, to create a Palestinian Arab state.

Since the Palestinian Authority actively promotes a culture of anti-Jewish and anti-American hatred and violence in its media, schools, summer camps, religious sermons, and speeches, a Palestinian Arab state will inevitably be a terrorist state.

The Palestinian Authority's new Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is continuing Yasir Arafat's policies. Mazen has not outlawed terrorist groups, disarmed them, or extradited them to Israel for prosecution. He has not even ordered the changing of the names of the many streets and squares that are named after terrorists--including the main square in Jenin, which is named after Ali Na'amani, the Iraqi suicide bomber who recently murdered four Americans.

To give the Palestinian Arabs a sovereign state would endanger America's ally, Israel. It will also undermine America's war against terrorism, by sending a message to terrorists everywhere that their violence will reap political and territorial concessions.

Sign the Petition

Perhaps these terrorists thought the road excluded the sea

Israel grabs arms boat; Palestinian PM meets Hamas

TEL AVIV, May 22 (Reuters) - Israel said on Thursday it had seized a boat off its Mediterranean coast carrying equipment for "terror attacks", and security sources said two Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas were among eight arms smugglers arrested.

The army announced the seizure of the boat as Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas held his first talks since he took office with leaders of the militant group Hamas in an apparent effort to persuade them to halt attacks on Israelis.

The talks could raise hopes for an international peace plan called the road map. But the seizure of the arms would undermine the plan if it turns out the weapons were bound for Palestinian militants fighting for an independent state.

In a potential boost for peace hopes, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said U.S. President George W. Bush may hold his first summit with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Abbas.

"It is possible there will be a summit like that," Shalom told Israeli television following telephone calls by Bush this week to Abbas and Sharon to try to salvage the peace plan.

He gave no details and did not say where and when the summit might take place.

The army said in a statement the boat had been captured in the Mediterranean Sea on Wednesday near the port city of Haifa, about 35 km (21 miles) south of the border with Lebanon.

"On the vessel the forces found suspicious objects and evidence of the transfer of know-how and directives for carrying out terror attacks," the statement said.
[more] Note: DEBKA has this to say:Israeli navy Wednesday intercepted boat smuggling Hizballah terrorists into Gaza Strip at Arafat’s request.

DEBKAfile reports exclusively: Captured aboard was Hizballah bomb specialist Hamad Amara bringing formula for secret super-powerful tank-busting explosive for handing over with special instruction to Fatah, Hamas and Jihad Islami terrorists in Gaza Strip.

Captured boat was Egyptian “Abu Hassan”. It was boarded by Hizballah fighters from Lebanese boat when two craft rendezvoused at sea.

Operation instigated by Arafat was directed by two aides: deputy Palestinian navy commander Fathi Razem and Palestinian Authority procurements director Adel el Mughrabi

Muslim moderate speaks out

A professor from the University of Western Ontario makes a call to arms so to speak for moderate muslims.

India's startling change of axis
By Sultan Shahin
Asia Times/Archives

India's national security adviser Brajesh Mishra outlined the proposal for a US-Israel-India axis against Islamic fundamentalism in Washington last Thursday. Mishra is perhaps the most trusted aide of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and served for several years as the head of the BJP's foreign affairs cell before the party came to power five years ago.

In an address to a meeting of the American Jewish Committee, Mishra argued that democratic countries that are the prime targets of international terrorism should form a "viable alliance" and develop multilateral mechanisms to counter the menace. He identified India, the US and Israel as countries fitting that description. "Such an alliance would have the political will and moral authority to take bold decisions in extreme cases of terrorist provocation. It would not get bogged down in definitional and causal arguments about terrorism," he maintained.

Speaking after a meeting with his American counterpart Condoleezza Rice, Mishra hit out at the Pakistani bid to characterize Kashmiri militants as freedom fighters. The talk that terrorism can be eradicated only by addressing its root causes is "nonsense" he said amid applause. He said that preventive measures like blocking financial supplies, disrupting networks, sharing intelligence and simplifying extradition procedures can be effective only through international cooperation "based on trust and shared values".
(All emphases added)

God's road map

Check out my latest column, up on Townhall.com. It discusses where the cardinal blame lies for the failure of peace in the Middle East -- Israel. Why? Because Israel is based on a secular Zionist foundation which inherently means seeking world approval instead of taking measures to protect Israeli citizens. The solution: Israel needs to start become a Jewish State, not just a state full of Jews.

[This has been cross-posted at Ben Shapiro Online.]

Al Qaeda Mega-Strike against Israel Thwarted

Attemp to crash Saudi plane into major Israeli city.

The terrorist mega-attack against which Israeli security - like the US, Britain, Australia and other western powers – has been on high alert since Tuesday, May 20, almost happened this week.

On Monday, May 19, Saudi authorities detained three Moroccan al Qaeda suspects at Jeddah international airport just as they were preparing to board a Saudi national airlines plane bound for Sudan. While “Saudi security sources” claimed the next day that the men planned to hijack the Saudi plane and crash it over Jeddah, DEBKAfile’s exclusive counter-terror sources reveal that, under interrogation, the suspected al Qaeda terrorists admitted they had intended flying the captive Saudi airliner over Israel and crashing it over an Israeli city.

That first Saudi announcement claimed the suspects carried knives and their last testaments. The Saudis make it a habit never to mention Israel in the context of al Qaeda’s attacks – even one which they thwarted. Then, Wednesday evening, May 21, Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef denied there had been any hijack plot. He said two not three Moroccans had been detained in connection with “previous security cases”.

According to DEBKAfile’s sources, neither Saudi version is correct. The terrorists were not just armed with knives but were loaded with explosives, and there were three of them, not two.

The high alert declared in Israel Tuesday also placed the Israeli Air Force on round–the-clock patrol to guard against hijackers reaching Israeli skies to attack Israeli towns.

U.S. demanding Israel formally accept road map

Shocking. This a complete about face.

By Aluf Benn and Nathan Guttman, Haaretz Correspondents

The U.S. administration is demanding Israel formally accept the road map to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so that it does not appear to be recalcitrant trying to delay advancing the political process.

As reported Wednesday night by Channel Two news, the U.S. administration has reversed its position in the last two days. Until now, the Americans have been saying there is no importance to a formal acceptance of the plan, and that the important thing is to start its implementation on the ground.

U.S. President George W. Bush told Sharon on Tuesday that it is important to proceed with the political process according to the road map. American officials told senior Israeli officials that they are under heavy pressure from Arab countries to make Israel accept the road map. They made clear that the issue of "acceptance" not become an obstacle to its implementation, giving the Palestinians an excuse not to act against the terror groups. The administration has also rejected Israel's distinction between Bush's June 24 speech and the road map meant to implement it.

The road map puts the refugee issue in the third phase of the process, during the final status negotiations. Israel is also against the road map's predication on the Saudi Arabian initiative, which calls for an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories captured in 1967. Sharon and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom have told the Americans that the road map, in its current form, could not pass the current government coalition.

The administration is also demanding that Sharon dismantle the illegal outposts in the West Bank, in a move that is clearly seen by the world, immediately after the next meeting between Sharon and Bush. But the administration has accepted an Israeli distinction being drawn between "illegal" outposts and "legal" ones. For Washington, the issue has become a matter of Sharon meeting his commitments.

Acceptance is a huge issue. To my mind, the US won't allow ammendments that are sure to sour the Arabs. Removal of the reference to the Saudi Plan will scuttle the whole idea of getting the Arab countries to make peace with Israel. By the way the Roadmap doesn't refer to Illegal settlements, so it appears the US admin is willing to accept a cessation of only "illegal" settlements. These are recent settlements that under Israeli law are illegal. They are small and not significant.

Why is the pressure always on Israel? Why aren't the Palestinians forced to accept our position. Once Israel accepts even if the process aborts, Israel in effect would have agreed to the Saudi Peace Plan. This is a horror.

Herb Keinon of JPost has a different take

With the road map stalled because of the recent terror wave, the US is trying to get Israel to begin implementing part of the diplomatic plan without completely endorsing it, according to diplomatic officials.

According to these officials, the US is aware that the road map as it stands now, without incorporating into it any of Israel's 15 objections, would have little chance of gaining Israeli cabinet approval.

As such, the US is calling on Israel to make some steps along the road map without fully endorsing it. The US, according to these sources, does not believe Israel's reservations to the plan are enough of a reason not to move forward on the plan, but also realizes that without Palestinian action against the terrorism, Israel can not be expected to make any dramatic gesture to the Palestinians.

Right now, one official said, "the Americans are thinking hard on how to get this whole thing unstuck.

Israeli officials said one possible way to bridge the gap between the Israel demand that its reservations be taken into account, and a US reluctance to open the whole plan for renegotiation, is to add side-letters or rephrase parts of the document. Both the Palestinians and the EU are adamantly opposed to changes in the document, and are demanding Israeli acceptance as is.

The US, according to diplomatic officials, is trying to extract a formula from Sharon beyond his oft-repeated expression that Israel accepts Bush's June 24th speech and vision of two states. In American eyes the problem with this statement is that it implies a vast difference between the road map and the Bush vision, something Bush Administration spokesman have repeatedly denied.

The New York Times puts it this way

A focus of the discussions, administration officials said, was a plea by the Bush administration for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel to drop his refusal to endorse the administration's peace plan, known as the "road map."

The administration was said to be looking for some artful language that would allow Mr. Sharon to endorse the plan, but somewhat ambiguously, making it possible for him to tell his fractious cabinet that he had not really endorsed it in its entirety.

Israel defies Powell to close Gaza

Israel has closed off the Gaza Strip to foreign nationals for the first time, as well as to Palestinians, only hours after pledging to visiting US secretary of state Colin Powell to improve relations with Palestinians.

The army said in a statement that security considerations made the pre-dawn closure neccessary, and banned all movement. According to military sources, the intelligence division had revealed planned Palestinian attacks inside Israel.

Israeli military sources said the new travel restriction was linked to the fact that a suicide bombing which killed three people plus the bomber on April 30 was carried out by a British citizen who entered from the Gaza Strip.

15,000 Palestinian workers only yesterday had received authorisation to return to work in Israel as Mr Powell pressed for an easing of restrictions on the Palestinians.

Mr Powell is on a Middle East tour seeking support for the American -backed "roadmap" to peace, which was given to Israelis and Palestinians after Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas took office last month.

He met Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak today and is now travelling to Jordan on the third leg of his tour.

Israel news: ten articles (links)

American aid to Middle East

According to the June 2003 issue of Reader's Digest, our good old USA doles out to Middle East Countries the following:

Bahrain $29 Million (military)
Egypt $659 million (economic), $1.3 billion (military)
Iran none
Iraq none before the war
Israel $748 million (economic), $2 billion (military)
Jordan $253 million (economic), $1.3 billion (military)
Kuwait none
Lebanon $37 million (economic), $568 million (military)
Libya none
Oman $515K (economic), $25 million (military)
Qatar none
Saudi Arabia $30,000 (economic), $24,000 (military)
Sudan $71 million (economic)
Syria none
UAE $350,000 (economic)
Yemen $9 million (economic), $20 million (military)

The Right Man, Part III

The crunch is on, as expected. Forgotten is The Right Man's speech about democracy and "leadership not compromised by terror" as pre-conditions for a "Palestinian" state. The Right Man is now thoroughly involved in the old US game of bullying its one Middle East ally, Israel.

Here are the facts. Ha'Aretz reports today (21 May 2003, story post-dated to 22 May 2003) that [bold font and comments in brackets, added]:

U.S. demanding Israel formally accept road map

The U.S. administration is demanding Israel formally accept the road map to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so that it does not appear to be recalcitrant trying to delay advancing the political process. [What happened to a discussion on Israel's 15 comments???]
...
American officials told senior Israeli officials that they are under heavy pressure from Arab countries to make Israel accept the road map. [These are the 22 Arab countries who unanimously opposed the liberation of Iraq by the US!] They made clear that the issue of "acceptance" not become an obstacle to its implementation, giving
the Palestinians an excuse not to act against the terror groups. The administration has also rejected Israel's distinction between Bush's June 24 speech and the road map meant to implement it.

Meantime, on the Arab side, there is little other than intransigence and terrorism. Shortly after Tuesday's phone conversation with The Right Man, this is what AP had to report about Abu Mazen, in a May 21 story entitled "Sharon's Chief of Staff to Talk to Bush" :

In an Arab television interview, however, Abbas reaffirmed his support for Arafat as the Palestinians' legitimate leader and accused Israel of trying to make Arafat a scapegoat.

From the outset, Bush dismissed Arafat as both ineffective and involved in terror. While Bush never invited Arafat to the White House, a contrast to the attention lavished on the Palestinian by Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, Abbas is expected to be invited to Washington to see Bush in the months ahead.
...
Bush "will not be deterred by the current terrorist bombings," Fleischer said. "He understands it will present a slowdown, a delay in this meeting, a bump on the road, but it will not deter him because he thinks there is no other choice."

Of course The Right Man "will not be deterred" - those who are blown to pieces are not his people, they are Sharon's people! And so, as David Warren observed today, The Right Man has given the terrorists a license to murder with impunity - with no penalty at all.

It did not take long for the terrorists and the one who sends them to get back on the job. Thus, JPost reported today (story post dated to May 22) as follows:

Firebomb thrown at car on Efrat-Tekoa road near Jerusalem

A firebomb was thrown at an Israeli vehicle on the Efrat - Tekoa road near Jerusalem late Wednesday night [May 21, 2003].

The firebomb exploded on the car and set it alight, reports Israel Radio.

The driver managed to stop the car and make his way out safely, suffering only minor burns.

In an additional story, JPost reports on even more terrorism:

Two large bombs discovered near Jewish community in Gaza Strip

An IDF force uncovered two large explosive devices north of the Dugit settlement in the northern Gaza Strip on Wednesday evening.

The bombs, weighing 100 kg and 150 kg respectively, were found hidden close to the separation fence between Jewish settlements in the northern Gaza Strip and the Gaza city.

Additional reports in this vein from IMRA, May 21, 2003:

IDF Forces Uncover Explosives Laboratory Used to Manufacture Material for Suicide Bombings

During IDF operations in the Nablus Casbah overnight (May 20, 2003), IDF forces uncovered an explosives laboratory that manufactured material for use in suicide bombings against Israeli civilians and security forces.

The laboratory contained 6 explosive belts, (3 of which were ready for use), 25kg of T.A.T.P explosives material, and additional chemicals intended for use in explosive devices. IDF forces also found a suitcase filled with explosives and ball bearings.

IDF forces along the Israel-Egypt border, near Rafah, were fired at last night.

Anti-aircraft shells were fired at the western sector of the Israel-Lebanon border overnight.

... And I strongly suspect that we only receive a fraction of the news dished out to Israelis on a daily basis. Of course, the US president ""will not be deterred by the current terrorist bombings", for he is The Right Man, isn't he? Isn't he?

Or should we start facing reality for what it is?

A Syrian ploy on weapons of mass destruction

This letter which ran in Ha'aretz simply speaks volumes, and debunks the claims of Arab states "needing" WMD as a deterrent to Israel

Fearing a similar fate to that of Saddam Hussein, key Arab leaders redoubled their efforts to deceive America and the world, rather than come clean about their own weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Thus, the first Syrian reaction to U.S. complaints about its chemical weapons was to focus on Israel's arsenal. Not only is Syria allegedly devoid of any chemical or biological weapons, but it is also entitled to such means in order to counterbalance Israel's nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, many in the West rushed to embrace the theory that the Middle East's arms race has been fueled by Israel's nuclear effort. Yet, even a cursory glance at the record will suffice to debunk this falsehood.

The introduction of WMD into the Middle East wars was first recorded in 1963 when Egypt employed chemical weapons in attacks against royalist forces in the Yemen civil war. The Egyptians used Soviet-built AOKh-25 aerial bombs to deliver phosgene, and Soviet-built KHAB-200 R5 aerial bombs to deliver mustard gas. Artillery shells were reportedly also used.

This was well before the Israeli nuclear program supposedly reached maturity, and in fact has only strengthened Israeli incentives to acquire a strategic deterrent. The fear was that Arab countries would not hesitate to unleash such weapons against Israel, given that they used them against their brethren.

In 1982, Syria used lethal cyanide gas to suppress a revolt by members of the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Hama, in Syria itself. Amnesty International reported that the attack killed 18,000 of the city's inhabitants. That same year Syria suffered a humiliating defeat by the Israel Air Force over Lebanon, losing 90 planes to none of Israel's. Syrian President Hafez Assad then decided to abandon his efforts to achieve "military equality" with the Israel Defense Forces. Instead he opted for a force of surface-to-surface missiles armed with chemical warheads, or, as he called them, "special weapons," to threaten Israel. Thus, the Syrian effort to acquire WMD came in response to Israel's conventional superiority, not its alleged nuclear arsenal.

In general, the notion that the Arabs have sought WMD to deter an Israeli resort to nuclear weapons is ludicrous. Why would Israel turn to such weapons given that its conventional military forces have proved more than adequate to defeat Arab armies on the battlefield time and again?

As early as in 1983, if not before, Iraq had begun using chemical weapons systematically in its war with Iran. On March 17, 1984 it became the first nation in history to use nerve gas, in this instance tabun, on the battlefield. By 1988 chemical weapons, including simultaneously blister and nerve agents, served as an integral part of Iraqi offensive battlefield operations. For its part, Iran sought to counter the devastating effect of the Iraqi chemical warfare by acquiring and using its own poison gases. Moreover, Iraq's efforts to get the bomb spurred Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

It is well-documented that Libya employed Iranian-supplied mustard gas bombs against Chad, its southern neighbor, in 1987. Elsewhere, the government of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was accused of using mustard gas by opposition forces. The opposition Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and Sudanese National Democratic Alliance (NDA), and Ugandan security officials repeatedly asserted, especially after 1995, that the Sudanese government produced chemical weapons with Iranian and/or Iraqi assistance, and used mustard gas in attacks on civilians and SPLA forces in the Nubian region of Sudan.

Even this brief history reveals that Arab search for weapons of mass destruction had little to do with Israel. Indeed, Arabs resorted to WMD most often against each other. The reason they have so far eschewed using them against their foremost enemy is their belief that the latter possesses a strategic deterrent. But given that all Arab and Muslim countries in possession of poison weapons actually used them, for Israel to give up its last-resort weapons could be suicidal. The draft resolution introduced by Syria to the United Nations Security Council on April 14, which called for the establishment of a "zone free of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons," in the Middle East must be seen as a sinister ploy. But given the sorry record of arms inspections in Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell's call for "the entire region [to] be free" of such weapons, was also ill-advised. Indeed the price of any Israeli-Palestinian and/or Israeli-Syrian peace agreement could well be to increase Israel's reliance on its strategic deterrent, given that any territorial concessions would aggravate Israel's vulnerability to conventional attack.

Avigdor Haselkorn,
Palo Alto, California

Palestinians protest against Hamas

A good sign

Hundreds of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip erupted in angry protest at an unusual target yesterday: Islamic militants, whom they blamed for bringing military incursions upon their town by firing rockets into Israel.

The townspeople of Beit Hanoun blocked a main road and burned tires just hours after Israeli tanks and troops pulled out. During their five-day incursion into the town, the forces demolished 15 homes, flattened orchards and tore up streets in what Israeli spokesmen said was an effort to deprive Palestinian militants of launching points.

"They claim they are heroes," farmer Mohammed Zaaneen complained, referring to the militants. "They brought us only destruction and made us homeless. They used our farms, our houses and our children to hide."

It was a rare sign of Arab popular support for a ceasefire. Palestinian, Israeli and U.S. leaders struggled to keep peace talks alive yesterday, after the deadly suicide bombings of recent days.

Pro-Israel Advocacy

Ted Belman speaks out.

The Problem

Not enough people understand the facts
Not enough people care who's right
People embrace panaceas such as "peace now".
People are tired of the conflict.
Some people are biased against Jews, Israel or the US
Arab lies travel half way around the world before Israel's truth gets out of bed.

Causes

Most media in the US and to a greater extend in Europe and to an even greater extent in the Islamic world, knowingly or unknowingly misrepresent the facts.

They also put a spin on the facts and stress issues inimical to Israel's interest. e.g. I watched BBC the other day . They were covering the bombing and the efforts Israel was taking such as tightening movement. Then they stressed the hardship on the Palestinians as a result of Israeli actions rather than the hardship on Israelis as a result of Palestinian actions. This is always the bottom line for them.

Governments also ignore or misrepresent the facts in pursuit of their own interests. Governments also misrepresent the facts knowingly and otherwise when adding spin that serves their interest.

People in general just want to live their lives. They take a passing interest in Israel but having nothing invested in its survival. They just want peace.

Then there are those who are anti-Israel either from the Left or the Right and the Arabs. They all want to harm Israel.

Then there are the lovers of Israel who really care that it survives and prospers. Even this group must be separated into those who worry about the rights of the Palestinians and their suffering and just want to make a deal to end the problem, not realizing that it will exacerbate the problem and those who think a strong stand must be taken. I just read a poll on IMRA in which it appeared that 36% of Israelis including Israeli Arabs, were for the roadmap, 26% against it and 35% didn't know enough about it. If so many people are out of it in Israel, what can you expect of the world.

The Moslems vastly out number the Jews. There are 22 Arab countries against one Israel. Each with their newspapers and politicians speaking to the media and to the UN. They are much richer and devote far more resources to the propaganda. Israel wants to live and prosper whereas the Arabs are focused on destroying Israel rather than prospering.

For all the world, appeasement is the name of the game as it was before the Second World War.

Israel's strengths.

The facts and the law support Israel
Israel has a strong military.
Many journalists support pro-Israel views and positions on the Right and certain media outlets likewise.
Certain organizations, as represented in the Summit recently held, support the cause.
Congress and the Senate are overwhelmingly support Israel.
AIPAC is a powerful lobby.
Pro-Israel blogs are many and serve to educate a small number (relatively) of people to be more informed of arguments and facts that support Israel. These people are already in the camp but there is a ripple effect as a result of their efforts with important results.

Action

There are many important watchdogs focussed on the media. CAMERA, MEMRI, and Honest Reporting to name a few. The latter has 65,000 members that they keep informed and encourage to take their local media to task when the reporting warrants it.

There are important initiatives on Campus headed by Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz and others. They are beginning to have an effect and student supporters of Israel are reclaiming lost ground and alumnae are also weighing in on the Universities.

AIPAC continues to do a great job and it is supported by the significant efforts of the Christian Right who are more committed than liberal Jews. AIPAC has been so successful in the past because they have activists in all states and who are constituents of each and every Congressman. Their lobbying starts at the grass roots level.
The leadership of the Christian Right are influential within the Republican Party. They mobilize their members and advocate within the party on behalf of Israel.

It seems to me that we have two groups to target in our efforts.
1. Those that care about Israel's survival but think another Oslo is the way to go ( They must be educated as to the threat to Israel) and
2. those who are open minded but don't have anything invested in its survival. As they get to understand the justice of Israel's cause or the threat to it they will be more supportive.

What can we, the blogging community, do to help?
1. We can put our shoulder to the wheel by individually writing to the press and encouraging others to do so.
2. We can individually lobby our political representatives.
3. We can support the efforts of groups like Campus Watch and David Horowitz and encourage others to pitch in.
4. We can continue to legitimize Right Wing ideas and to make them more acceptable and mainstream. We must continue our efforts to destroy the myths. We must not accept the idea that there is no military solution.
5. We can encourage our readers to sign petitions and generally support any initiative we learn about which supports Israel.

ALL THE FOREGOING WE ARE DOING TO SOME DEGREE OR ANOTHER BUT CAN DO MORE..

Joseph's idea of mobilizing all the bloggers to lend a hand is not going to work. Bloggers are individuals and who like to do their own thing. They will each promote something when the spirit moves them. Your idea is a lot like centralized government. I prefer free enterprise. The more pro Israel bloggers out there doing there own thing is the best way to go. I don't believe in efforts to bring them all together. I do believe in notifying them of events and other ideas etc and encourage them to help but that's all we can do.

I have no grandiose ideas but do believe that every bit helps.

It's All About Marketing

Some wars are fought with bullets and bombs. Some are fought with words and ideas. Strategy and tactics are critical to them all and all can be deadly.

You and I, mere bloggers and most of us civilians, lack the skills and tools to fight the first kind of war. But we’re critical to the second, because such a war is being waged whether we participate or not and it likely can’t be won if you and I don’t take up keyboard and website and march to battle.

What I’m talking about is the PR war that the Left and Islam have been fighting – separately but with a common goal – against us for decades. At first glance it may seem cheesy or trite or melodramatic to think of presenting ourselves and our cause to the greater public as if this were all some corporate marketing campaign. But to do otherwise is to admit defeat, because that’s exactly what our enemies have been doing and they’ve become masters of this type of warfare.

The two forces, the Left and Islam, have formed an alliance born of convenience. To say that their joined marketing prowess is considerable would be a gross understatement.

The Left has been at this since the Vietnam War. They use every media outlet imaginable to both scream about the evils of America and the Right and to cry that they’ve been victimized. They not only tell the world why our side must be destroyed but why their side should be pitied, accepted and joined.

They have the majority of Hollywood types, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, 90% of all newspapers and at a head start of at least three generations.

What do we have in the way of real marketing? Hmmmmmm. Well, there’s a handful of radio hosts, there's Righty Babes, and there's the rare sites like Anti-Jihad, IsraPundit and LFG and there's NRO, Fox, the WSJ, all of us and the knowledge that without us America and the West are in considerable danger. It isn't much, but it's a start.

Logically the Left is a shadow of what once made it great, but its frontline troops are charismatic, exceptional speakers, passionate and masters of emotional manipulation. They are marketers of the first degree. From Noam Chomsky to Robert Fisk to Michael Moore to Cynthia McKinney to Robert Byrd to James Carville to Hillary Clinton, to name just a few of the most notable, you’ll find the previously listed traits. These people are larger than life and take advantage of the assumed legitimacy granted them by their status and position.

Knowing that rhetorically the ground they’ve chosen for battle is inferior they’ve infiltrated our institutions of higher learning. Their marketing campaign begins where they can hijack young minds before logical thinking skills have been learned. They can choke off reason and plant blind hatred in its place.

One thing we can do to fight this is train our politicians, news people and other prominent figures on how to speak. It isn’t enough for them to say, “Hey, those people are evil. Don’t listen to them.” and then prove it.

They also have to say, “You know what, we aren’t fighting this war against Terror because it’s politically expedient We’re fighting because it’s the right thing to do. We’re fighting because you put us in office to protect you and we’d be letting you down to do anything else. We’re fighting because it would be irresponsible and morally degenerate to fail you in this duty. But you know what? We can’t do it without you. We need you, all of you, and I’ll tell you a few things you can do to help.”

Then proceed to let them know EXACTLY how they can help, because in helping they become involved. When they become involved in our cause, which they already support in principle anyway, it becomes their cause on a more personal level. It gains a degree of romance, it becomes an adventure and it becomes important not only because they agree with our goals and ideology but because they now have an investment in our success and want to see a positive return on that investment.

The leaders of Islam are no less deft in their marketing of themselves and their cause than are the leaders of the American Left. Groups like al Qaeda infest local mosques. There they insinuate their extremist yet Koranically supported ideas into young minds in an environment that leaves no room for alternate opinions or arguments. They use impassioned speeches, Koranic verse, shame and intimidation to first melt and then shape the minds placed at their mercy.

Then we have countries like Saudi Arabia spending hundreds of millions to spread Wahabism, the most virulent, hate-blinded sect of Islam, over the past several decades. As part of their marketing campaign they are building mosques and schools that promote this hatred all over the world. They set up charities as front organizations. The teach grade school children addition by having them add one dead Jew plus three dead Jews. They hold telethons to raise money to support Terror groups and their families. They shout their hatred of America and Israel in State run newspapers and on State run TV and radio.

But they’re shrewd. At the same time they spend millions to trick Americans into thinking of them as peace-loving allies. They literally hire marketing companies to improve their image. They go on America TV crying out against the unfairness of our believing them to be in bed with al Qaeda and other Terrorist groups. They call us liars and swear their loyalty to our cause.

Until recently we also had Saddam Hussein’s marketing campaign. He’d give money to the families of suicide bombers. He let them know that if they sent their kids out to kill themselves that it could make them far better off. It would be a pot of gold for the entire community and everyone could join in.

I’ve also just read an article about a group of young black Muslims who use Rap to get out their message about Islam. It is, for them, a successful and growing marketing tool. I don’t mean to disparage these young men, because it doesn’t seem that they in any way promote violence, at least not intentionally. But this is still marketing, effective marketing, done in the name of Islam.

Then look at what Muslims do to suicide / homicide bombers. They literally make them heros. They make them sexy. They make them larger than life. They make freakin’ action figures of them. They coin fake gold medallions stamped with their likenesses. They print posters with murderers faces and a record of how many Jews they murdered, for children to hang in their rooms like I used to have posters of Samantha Fox in mine.

Why can’t we do the same with real heros? Why have we let Jessica Lynch fade into obscurity, even allowing the BBC to belittle her and her rescuers? Why haven’t we had Shoshanna Johnson and her compatriots on every freakin’ Righty talk show in America?

Do you remember those articles from Israel about Jewish hospital workers and how hard it is for them when they are treating “Palestinians” (for free!) and the freakin’ psychotic bastards CHEER when dying Jews are brought it after a suicide / homicide bombing? Or how the filthy “Palestinians” refuse to allow Jewish doctors to save their childrens’ lives because the blood needed for transfusions came (again FREE) from Jews?

Why aren’t we getting more of these stories, stories that humanize Jews and show the truth of Islam’s hate, out to the public? Freakin’ come on, man, Judaism is a religion of ethics more than a religion of theology. There is no shortage of evidence that can be presented, so why isn’t it? We are failing!

We are failing miserably when it comes to representing ourselves to the public, while our enemies are doing quite well at this. They paint themselves as misunderstood victims and us as greedy, corrupt oppressors and until 9/11 we were doing NOTHING to combat them. We’ve lost ground. Lots of it. And it will be a nasty fight to gain it back.

We are not powerless, and since 9/11 we’ve been doing better. But we aren’t doing enough.

Cross posted to Yankee Jihad

Why militants reject the roadmap

Believe it or not, this is the BBC calling

"These attacks will continue in all the territories of 1948 and 1967, and we will not stop attacking the Zionist Jewish people as long as any of them remain in our land." Hamas considers all of Israel as occupied territory. The words come from a statement issued on Monday morning by the armed wing of the militant group Hamas.

Hamas is prominent among the Palestinian groups who have refused to have anything to do with the latest plan for peace in the Middle East - the so-called roadmap.

The group said it had carried out a suicide bomb attack in the Gaza Strip on Monday where a bomber, on a bicycle, rode up to an Israeli army jeep near the Jewish settlement of Kfar Darom. He detonated between 10 and 20 kilograms of explosives, killing himself and wounding three Israeli soldiers, the Israeli army said

"What they consider as the far goal for them, we consider as just a stage in our struggle." Dr Abdel-Aziz Rantissi, Hamas

The reasons Hamas reject the roadmap are hinted at in the statement above. "1948" refers to the whole of Palestine as it was during the British mandate, before the State of Israel was established. "1967" refers to the Israeli borders as they were before the Israeli army took control of the West Bank and Gaza during the war of that year.

The Palestinian Authority, under the new Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas , more commonly known as Abu Mazen, has accepted the roadmap. The plan speaks of "a permanent two-state solution", of "an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel". That is what Hamas, and other militant groups like Islamic Jihad, do not agree to.

In a recent interview, one of Hamas' political leaders, Dr Abdel-Aziz Rantissi, explained his movement's position relative to that of the Palestinian Authority. "What they consider as the far goal for them, we consider as just a stage in our struggle. We believe that we shouldn't give up any part of our land." 'No surrender'

Israel has yet to accept the roadmap, saying it has "reservations". Militants have carried out dozens of bombings. At the weekend, as Abu Mazen met Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the Hamas suicide bombings continued.

Six Israelis and a Palestinian from east Jerusalem died in an attack on a bus in Jerusalem on Sunday morning. Such attacks are the principle reason given by Israel for its reservations.

Under the terms of the roadmap, the Palestinians must "undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting or planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere." That means Hamas and the other militant groups.

But it will be a difficult task. Hamas have always said that they have no intention of handing over their weapons while Israeli military operations in the West Bank and Gaza continue. As the roadmap was published, and ever since then, Dr Rantissi's line has been clear. "We will not surrender in front of the aggression of the Israelis. And we said many times that as long as there is occupation, there will be resistance," he insisted. Dr Rantissi says politely that the Palestinian Authority is "proceeding in the wrong way".

Opinion in the streets is harsher. Many Hamas supporters, pointing to past failures, believe that the Palestinian Authority should not be talking to Israel at all in the current climate. They fear they will be sold short on issues such as the return of refugees and the status of Jerusalem.

On Tuesday, Israeli forces withdrew from the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun, five days after they took it over to stop Hamas firing rockets at Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip, and at nearby Israeli towns.

The crude, home-made, devices rarely cause serious injury. But they do spread fear, and the Israeli army has been under pressure to stop the attacks.

At least six Palestinians - four teenage boys, and two militants - were killed in the five-day long operation. One Israeli soldier was severely injured. During the Israeli raid, Hamas militants have continued to launch rockets, and have issued defiant statements describing their actions. Not only do they reject the route which the roadmap proposes to take, they do not even see the kind of Palestinian state it is supposed to lead to as a desirable final destination.

Coming from the BBC, this is amazing. To highlight the intentions of Hamas in this way is truely a abberation. Let's hope that its one that will be repeated.

this will ruffle some feathers!

Israel and the EU

UPI: The visiting delegation from the European Union was startled this week when Israel Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said his government was weighing an application to join the EU.

"It doesn't mean he is preparing the dossier for applying tomorrow," an Israeli spokesman said. "In principle, the minister thinks a possibility exists for Israel to join the EU, since Israel and Europe share similar economies and democratic values."

For Israel, EU membership would mean an end to the regional isolation it suffers, and a strong security guarantee, along with all the economic advantages of the vast EU market. Joining the EU would presumably mean joining the euro, shielding Israel from the kinds of currency crises that have hit the shekel since the intifada battered its important tourism industry.

For the EU, Israel's impressive high-tech industry could be useful, but any economic advantages to Israeli membership would have to be balanced against the wider political costs to the EU, unless the Jewish state's relationship with its Arab neighbors is transformed.

note: for full account of this, see http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030521-112245-2333r

America's Next Move

The war on terror will be won not only on the battlefield but in schools.

Max Boot after discussing the difficulties the US is having in winning the peace offers this as the solution

There is only one solution to this problem, and it is called liberal democracy.

Spreading freedom in the Arab world is no easy task, of course, but if democracy could take root in eastern Europe, east Asia and Latin America, there is no theoretical reason why it shouldn't work in the Middle East.

This will ultimately be up to the local people, but America can give them a helping hand, as it has helped other democrats from Poland to the Philippines. The West should heed the eloquent plea issued last week by the Egyptian dissident Saad Eddin Ibrahim to "assist the democratic transformation of the region".

Many people, including apparently Ibrahim himself, seem to think this means emphasizing the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process", but that would be a big mistake. The vaunted "road map" leads nowhere. Or rather it leads precisely where the Oslo process did: to mutual recriminations.

Those who think that Israeli concessions can buy peace from Islamic Jihad and Hamas (or even from Yasser Arafat's own al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades) make the same mistake as those who think that US or British concessions can buy peace from al Qaeda.

The fundamental problem in the Palestinian Authority is the same as in the rest of the Middle East: lack of liberalism. Developing democratic institutions isn't as sexy as pushing a "peace process", but it must be the West's primary emphasis in the region. Sometimes this will involve forcible regime change, as in Iraq. More often, subtler measures are called for.

Here's one example. Saudi Arabia is notorious for spreading Wahhabism, the most intolerant, hateful breed of Islam, around the world. It spends an estimated $3 billion to $4 billion a year on activities that give rise to terrorism. Many poor parents in the Islamic world send their children to Saudi-funded madrasah schools, which preach Wahhabism, simply because they have no alternative education system.

Riyadh can afford to do this because it's rich (GDP: $241 billion). But America is much, much richer (GDP: $10 trillion). Why doesn't the US use a few odd billion dollars to pay for secular schools in the Islamic world that teach the skills needed to succeed in the modern world?

This is the kind of unconventional strategy that America must pursue if it is to win this long war against Islamist terror. Military success is important, but it's not enough.

(Max Boot is Olin senior fellow at the influential American government think tank the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power.")

Explaining the unexplainable

Why the fascination with the Middle East

WOWBAGGER makes a good attemp.

National Review: Lerner: HEBRON REVISITED

The Truth About Pollard

This article in Moment argues that the main reason Pollard was sentenced to life was now-proved-false belief that he had compromised agents working for the US in the Soviet Union. In fact, those agents were sold out by Ames and Hansen. The article also has some juicy allegations that the Reagan Administration knew of Arab and specifically Saudi terrorist support but ignored it.

The Truth About Jonathan Pollard

Globe and Mail is at it again

In response today, I wrote two letters to the editor

Paul Knox
Paul Knox's bias is all too evident.

After describing the carnage in Israel and the perhaps mortal blow it dealt the roadmap, Paul Knox goes on to attack Israel and Prime Minister Sharon rather than the perpetrators of the violence.

He writes that the "moderate Palestinian backers" of the roadmap were already undercut by Sharon's insistence on the Palestinians "dropping of the Palestinians' long-standing claim to the right of return to land from which they were expelled."

This is troubling for a number of reasons. It is far from certain that there are moderate Palestinian backers as he blithely states. He assumes that because the roadmap was drawn up by the quartet, Israel, who wasn't a party to it, has no right to reject it outright or set preconditions. By what right does the Quartet have to impose the roadmap on Israel in the first place? He doesn't add that there is no right of return recognized in law or that such a right would mean the end of Israel. It is enough for him that such right is claimed. Finally he ignores that most of the refugees left on their own accord and prefers to gain sympathy for the refugees describing them as having been expelled.

He further shows his bias by disparaging Sharon because "of the kind of man he is." What kind is that prey tell? Sharon is a democratically elected leader with overwhelming support in Israel who is determined to protect Israel. That's the kind of man he is.

No where in his article does he criticize Arafat or Mazen for the continuation of terror. Why not?

Naomi Klein
Naomi Klein's totally biased article in support of Rachel Corry and ISM is one thing but it is quite another for her to write, and for the editor to permit, that Ms Corrie died in "Israeli-occupied Palestine."

First, there is no country called "Palestine". There are only disputed territories captured by Israel in a defensive war, in which territories,the Security Council, by Resolution 242, authorized Israel to remain in occupation of, until it had secure and recognized borders.

It is distortions such as these that create erroneous perceptions and fail the cause of truth.

The Immense Potential of Pro-Israel Blogging

As someone who stumbled into the blogosphere myself during the past year and noticing the immese efforts of Israel's enemies, there is no question that the the power of the internet to promote one's cause is not only indespensible but quickly becoming the most relevant, authoratative and free method of mass communication.

The many uses and power of the internet are nowhere even close to being harnessed or realized by the end-user - the public. That's the point about blogging and the internet - in the world of real time free exchange of ideas, there are no barriers - age, sex, distance, nothing (assuming you live in a free country). I think its amazing.

What I think the bloggers - and indeed Israel advocates in the diaspora - need to understand is the need to be more in touch with the cultural and societal environment in which decisions are made and how they affect Israelis, who I can personally tell you that in spite of this horrible and incomprehensible terror, still aspire above all to an inclusive peace with our neighbours. That we are literally devoted to the cause of achieving peace for ourselves amongst our neighbours. This last part of the message often does not get across as it is indeed tough not to address the heap of propoganda, horrors and injustices of the moment.

Israel will and indeed is waking up to the great utility and power of the free masses ability to communicate their ideas and perspective - a freedom that has unfortunately been almost exclusively exercised by forces who are paradoxically intent on destroying those freedoms. Israel IS sexy, cool, exciting AND the good guys.
We just have to make it known to the world.

If you look at -for lack of better term on my part - the "demographics" of the people involved in pro-Israel advocacy a truly effective "mass-independent" new media campaign by well educated, computer-literate people - manifested in the blogging community, I have every reason to think that this can be very successful.

Joseph, you have nothing but support and encouragement for your initiative. There is no reason why Israpundit cannot grow to be a sort of clearing house of no-nensense pro-Israel information -which in essence it already is. For all those out there - help him! Coordinate yourselves. Good things will come of it.

Good News: Bush Considers Amending the Road Map.

Martin Kimel has two nice tidbits, one of which is good news for those fearful of the Bush Road Map. See links within text

To the dismay of many in the administration, the plan, which was supposed to facilitate peace, has become an impediment to it, in the process isolating Israel as opposing something favored by Europe, the United Nations, Russia, the American president and the Arab world.

Administration officials now say that they face a choice of abandoning the road map altogether and starting over, or somehow trying to persuade Israel to endorse it, perhaps by agreeing to some changes.

Fortunately, this report indicates that the administration is not accepting the false choice offered by the Washington Post editorial board today, which is to push the Road Map without changes or to accept blame for inaction and another Israeli-Palestinian breakdown. The Post's disdain for the right of a democratic Israel to decide what is in its own best interests is nothing less than shameful.
* * *
WaPo Bias Watch -- or, don't know much about history. This is the kind of blunder that results either from buying into the Palestinian narrative wholesale or from ignorance of the region's history. Here's the key paragraph in Karen DeYoung's story:

srael rejects the document's reference to negotiations over the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israeli territory from which they or their ancestors were ejected, as well as its positive reference to a proposal made last year by Saudi Arabia. That proposal cited the "right of return" and the final status of Jerusalem as subjects for negotiation. Neither would be accepted by Sharon's carefully balanced cabinet, the Israeli official said. (Emphasis added.)

But, of course, many if not most of the Palestinians who fled their homes during the Arab-launched war of independence did so voluntarily; that is, they were not "ejected." I've asked WaPo's ombudsman for a correction. I'll keep you updated.

The Bene Israel Lived in Mumbai!

Surprise found here at Islamic Voice, which notes that "The Indian tolerance for the Jews, whose long history elsewhere in the world has included persecution and prejudice, is indeed unusual, admirable, and deserving of recognition."

The island city of Bombay will always have a very special place in the collective historical memory of the Indian Jewish community. It was here that the bulk of Indian Jews, more specifically the Bene Israel and Baghadadi Jews, resided and flourished for over 250 years.

How did these communities enmesh their lives with the city that was their home for so many years? One way of assessing their progress is to use the monuments they built as milestones of their geographical, economic, political, social and communal growth.

The oldest Bene Israel landmark in Bombay is the Shaar Harahamim synagogue, which stands on Samuel Street, Mandvi. It is a squat, functional structure, built by Commandant Samaji Hasaji Divekar to commemorate his close escape from death after being taken prisoner during the Second Anglo-Mysore War. Interestingly, Samaji owed his deliverance to the fact that he was a Bene Israel. He would have been beheaded along with the other prisoners, had it not been for the intercession of Tipu's mother and her maulvi . According to Sheppard (1917), they had read of the Bene Israel (literally, children of Israel) in the Qu'ran, and welcomed the opportunity of seeing one face to face. The building of the synagogue was a matter of pride for the entire community and a turning point as it marked the beginning of organised religious and communal life. Moreover, being at the centre of the Jewish locality, which comprised Samuel Street, Isaji Street and Israel Mohalla, the locality where the Bene Israel lived was easily accessible to the community for daily worship. After the Shaar Harahamim synagogue was built, other Bene Israel synagogues and prayer halls sprang up in Bombay in quick succession, and also in the Konkan region.

Parallel to the religious and communal consciousness in Bombay was the development of the Bene Israel community in Pune. Just as in Bombay, the community was concentrated in specified areas, such as Rasta Peth and the adjoining Nana Peth area. The lane in which the Succoth Shelemo (Tabernacle of Solomon) synagogue, erected in 1921, stands is still called Israel Alley, reminiscent of the days when most of the adjoining old buildings were filled with Bene Israel families till their emigration to Israel in the late 1940s and after.

Indian Jews generally built their synagogues quite some time after settling in India. The Jews in the Indian sub-continent enjoyed religious freedom, which included the chance to be full and productive citizens and the opportunity to construct synagogues of their own volition. This particularly Indian tolerance for the Jews, whose long history elsewhere in the world has included persecution and prejudice, is indeed unusual, admirable, and deserving of recognition. It is significant that the Bene Israel, Baghdadi, and Cochin Jews living in India maintained distinct identities.

Owing to political changes over the last half-century, today's Jewish communities in India have dwindled considerably and the synagogues which once served them vary in their level of preservation. Although several synagogues continue to operate today, the Shaar Hashamaim (Gate of Heaven) synagogue in Thane, just outside Mumbai has always been home to the largest number of Jews in India, but today most have left the central city for the more affordable and less congested suburbs.

Other congregations maintain marginal existences, whilst some, such as the Shaare Shalom (Gates of Peace) synagogue at Borlai Hubshi, Janjira, have ceased to function altogether.

Synagogues of the Cochin Jews are unique. The earliest of these buildings dating from the 12th to the 14th centuries no longer exist, six from the 16th and 17th centuries and one much more contemporary remain. Today only the Paradesi synagogue in Cochin is functioning and nearly all the others stand in poor levels of preservation.

In the 19th century, when the Jewish emissary Jacob Sapir (1822-55) visited Cochin, he described the Paradesi synagogue there as "amazingly wonderful" and "of perfect beauty". To this day, it remains one of the most beautiful Jewish sites in India serving a socio-religious community in which the elders are the leaders of the congregation. It is a public and legal organization with joint assets. The Paradesi synagogue site was given to the Jews by one of the most famous of the Perumpadappu Swarupam maharajas, Bhaskara Ravi Varman (1565-1601) and is located very near his palace and temple in Jew Town, which indicates the importance given by the Raja to the Jewish community.

The Synagogue, known as the Paradesi or foreigners' synagogue, was built in 1568 by four rich and learned Jews who had settled in Cochin - Samuel Castiel, David Beleliah, Ephraim Salla, and Joseph Levi. In 1662 it was partially burnt down by the Portuguese. Two years later, it was rebuilt by Shem-Tov Kastiel, who was the fourth headman with judicial functions of the Jewish community. In 1760, work was begun on the bell tower with its clock (equivalent to a campanile in a church) and in 1762 the floor was covered with willow-patterned blue

To this day, the Paradesi Cochin synagogue remains one of the most beautiful Jewish sites in India. The Cochin Jews even in modern times, remove their footwear, probably in remembrance of the divine command to Moses on Mount Horev

Rush Limbaugh on Israel's Problems with the Palestinians

As a follow up to one of Bunuel's posts yesterday, here's what Rush Limbaugh had to say
(Note: I'm not sure if the link will continue to work after today, as such I've posted the text)

We've had five terrorist attacks in Israel in the last few days, and a huge attack that came on the day that Ariel Sharon was going to be meeting with the new Palestinian prime minister, which ought to show people that what the Palestinians want is anything but peace.

The point of this commentary is that the Palestinians don't want peace and the Arabs in the Middle East don't want peace. They want the end of Israel. They want the destruction of Israel. More and more of these pieces are being written because the truth is inescapable now. There have been so many overtures for peace, there have been so many efforts made, and the closer it appears to be getting to peace, the more violence erupts. All the liberals of the world say that dialogue is the most crucial ingredient to peace, do they not? Clearly the most crucial ingredient to peace is victory. You don't get peace unless it is preceded by victory. That's called the Limbaugh Doctrine, but liberals think you can bring peace by appeasing your enemy, and through dialogue, nurses, doctors, clean water, exchange programs, etc.

There was going to be "dialogue," a little meeting between Ariel Sharon and the new Palestinian official this week and what happened? Attack after attack after attack, suicide bombing after suicide bombing. The last thing these people want over there is peace. I don't care whether you call it Oslo or Camp David or Camp David II, or the road map to peace, the fact is that there's no Palestinian, no Syrian, no Iranian, who will accept an Israeli state.

Everybody talks about establishing a Palestinian state, but the real effort being made here is the destruction of the Israeli state. If we've learned anything since September 11th, it's that you simply cannot negotiate with terrorists. Why we have learned this everywhere but the Middle East is beyond me. I'm a big believer in democracy and republican government, but the conditions for democracy among the Palestinians don't exist.

If the truth be known, folks, the Palestinians are not all that liked by these neighboring Arab nations. The Jordanians don't want the Palestinians anywhere near them, the Saudis don't want the Palestinians anywhere near them, the Lebanese don't even want them there, the Iraqis don't want them anywhere near them - and even though the Iranians aren't Arabs, they don't want them. The Palestinians are simply being used as a weapon for all these other nations. It's so classically obvious

The Arabist Legacay at NPR

Reading an article by Andrea Levine of CAMERA in today's jpost, I was struck by her reference to NPR reporter Kate Seelye and her previous work for the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee. I recalled the name Seeyle and the connection to the Arab world from an article I read many years ago about the Arabists in the State Department. I found the article and turns out I was correct: Seeyle comes from a line of Arabists going back to the 19th Century, and her father was Talcott Seeyle, a long-time State Dept. Arabist. The article says,

[Talcott] Seelye talks easily about the time in October of 1973 when, as ambassador to Tunisia, he sent Secretary of State Henry Kissinger a cable advising him not to send arms for Israel's defense after the surprise attack by Egypt and Syria. He was, of course, ignored. Yet Kissinger was well enough aware of Seelye's skill as a hands-on Arabist to trust him to go to Lebanon as a special emissary in 1976, after the assassination of U.S. Ambassador Francis Meloy Jr. Though Seelye was criticized for utilizing PLO security men, he did manage to effect a low-key evacuation of U.S. diplomats and their families from war-torn Beirut. "I used the PLO simply because they controlled the area we had to pass through," he explains.

Later, when he was ambassador to Syria, Seelye's cables to the State Department's Policy Planning Staff--so seemingly understanding of Syria's actions--would cause Francis Fukuyama to scrawl in the margins, "Talcott Seelye is the Syrian Ambassador to Washington, not the American Ambassador to Syria." In 1981, upon his retirement from the Foreign Service, Seelye called reporters into his office in Damascus to disparage the Camp David accords and to call on the United States immediately to open a dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The article even mentions Seeyle's daughter, without giving her first name: Seelye's daughter is continuing the family tradition: not long after graduating from Amherst [College] she moved to Jordan to teach, and subsequently she went to work as a staff aide to Queen Noor.

NPR doesn't hide Seeyle's background in her official bio, but it doesn't go into the details of who her father was.

With that sort of background, what can we expect from NPR's coverage?

Also, be sure to read the whole article on the Arabists, since it's a great expose and gives a lot of historical background to State's opinion on Israel.

UPDATE: apparently Seeyle also writes for the New York Times, which I guess I hadn't notice before since I try to avoid reading that rag. And interestingly enough, she wrote the article about some Jewish Leftists threatening Democratic presidential candidates. Meanwhile, Jonathan Tobin has a great article about these sad Leftists, who can't even claim to speak for Israelis but are seeking greater influence in US policy.

in case you wanted to know...

Islam's Lasting Connection With China


For many Muslims living in Northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, they head to the tomb of Thabit Ibn Qays, an ancient Islamic sage, located in the western part of urban Hami, about 600 kilometres east of Urumqi, capital of Xinjiang.

Known by the local Muslim population as "Geys' Mazars," the ancient Islamic missionary is worshipped by an increasing number of Chinese Muslims every June and July.

It is one of the few existing tombs of the ancient Islamic sages, known among Muslims as the "Companions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad."

The tomb is 22 metres long from east to west, 12 metres wide from north to south and 15 metres high.

It consists of a square base, a round arched dome - both inlaid with green glazed bricks - and surrounding corridors with wooden columns and up-turned eaves, indicating a combination of both Arabic and Chinese architectural styles.

Qays was believed to have died in AD 635 on his homebound trip along the Silk Road westward. He was buried by his followers in the Xingxing Valley, to the east of today's Hami.

Years earlier, Qays, along with other Islamic missionaries - the most prominent among them being Sa'ad ibn abi Waqqaas, a maternal uncle of the Holy Prophet Muhammad - paid a landmark visit to the Tang Dynasty (AD 618-907) capital of Chang'an (today's Xi'an, capital of Northwest China's Shaanxi Province), inviting Emperor Taizong to embrace Islam.

The remnants of the original tomb was relocated by Hami Muslims in 1946.

For over 1,300 years, the tomb has stood as a witness to the dissemination and evolution of Islamic culture in China.

Islamic culture

Islam is one of the five major religions in China. The four others are Buddhism, Taoism, Catholicism and the Protestantism.

Muslims take great pride in citing a hadith that says "seek knowledge even it is in China."

It points to the importance of looking for lore, even if it meant travelling as far away as China.

Observing the Prophet's instructions, his followers sent missionaries to China one after another.

Some historians hold that, as early as the Sui Dynasty (AD 581-618) during the revelation of Islam (AD 610-632) to the Prophet, Islam had already appeared in China. [more]

Sarah Honig remembers

April 19, 1936 was pivotal in the annals of this country. It began like any other workday, except that simultaneously in different quarters of Jaffa men spread reports about four Arabs three men and one woman who had been butchered in Tel Aviv and whose bloodied remains had been brought to the local government hospital.

Within minutes, as if by a meticulously orchestrated maneuver, thousands descended menacingly on the British Mandatory headquarters. Officials sought to calm tempers by escorting a delegation through the hospital to prove that no bodies were there.

But proof wasn't in demand. Facts were immaterial. The agitators swore they had seen the dead and the incensed crowds were convinced that the absence of a corpus delicti doesn't belie the crime. It could only mean that the police had hidden the corpses.
Ferocious cries of itbach el-yahud (slaughter the Jews )resonated through the streets. The roused rabble was on the warpath to wreak vengeance on Tel Aviv.

Thus started the great, three-year Arab revolt that cost thousands of lives and, paradoxically, fortified the embryonic Jewish state which would be born a dozen years later.

The Arab aggression against the Jews was based on an outright lie, but no one sought truth. The lie, if believed, becomes reality. Fraudulent reality then takes on a life of its own. If nurtured, it grows, multiplies and becomes an axiomatic premise for a searing sense of injustice and inflamed passions.

The lie binds. Spurious grievances confine and scourge those they ensnare.

The Arabs were the victims of their own revolt. They murdered their own brethren and ruined their own economy. It was a self-produced disaster, a precursor of the greater one which would follow the onslaught by seven Arab states on the day-old Israel.

The Jewish state would be blamed for surviving and would fill its thwarted would-be destroyers with yet more frustration and festering rage. Instead of abating, genocidal hate would intensify and magnify for 55 years . Since the failed attack, Arabs annually mark the Gregorian date of Israel's birth, May 15, as al-Nakba (The Catastrophe). They portray themselves as innocents struck by a monumental calamity, and continuously oppressed, through no fault of their own. They clamor for another chance, for a return to square one, presumably to recoup the losses of the unsuccessful aggression and carry on where they left off.

This year has been no exception. Yasser Arafat has all but crumpled the wispy road map to peace. Like Jaffa's rumor-mongers who attested to never-committed murders, Arafat, ever-relevant, delivered a fiery speech to hammer home the message that the Jewish state was conceived in sin "hatched in an imperialist plot" and "born on an accursed day" and is hence illegitimate. He promised that "every last refugee would return to his rightful home." The masses were again reminded that they are the injured party, that Israel is culpable for their suffering and owes them redress. Again, truth was besides the point.

Hanan Ashrawi's Miftah Organization (The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy) dispatched press releases to mark al-Nakba, asserting that "five and a half decades ago Israel forcibly and illegally expelled... 900,000 Palestinians." Today, it maintains, "there are more than five million Palestinian refugees."

One paragraph down the figures dwindle to "close to 800,000" refugees in 1948, and "close to 5 million" today. According to another communique, a couple of days later, 737,000 refugees were dispossessed in 1948, but their present numbers rise dramatically to 6.5 million!

But why quibble over obviously malleable statistics? All the above contentions are no more real than the 1936 corpses and likewise serve as tools of incitement.

AN ESTIMATED 1,200,000 Arabs lived west of the Jordan in 1948 and those of Judea and Samaria stayed put (some 600,000), as did 140,000 inside Israel.

It's therefore impossible that there ever were as many refugees as claimed. But even numbers which don't add up can be methodically inflated. Not even all recognized refugees were bona fide Palestinians. UNRWA conferred refugee status on any transient Arab worker from anywhere in the Middle East who said he was employed in this country between 1946-48. Laborers were attracted from far-flung corners of the Arab world by Jewish-generated "prosperity," and were particularly numerous on the coastal plain, from which most refugees fled.

Yet Jews from Arab countries, resident there long before the first Arab conquest, were never regarded as refugees. They left behind immeasurably more property than Arabs did in Israel.

Moreover, Palestinian refugees are indistinguishable from their kin in the three-fourths of Palestine that became Transjordan in 1922, and then Jordan. They weren't exiled but just moved a few kilometers to the next village. Insistence on the "right of return" is a euphemism for inundating Israel with millions of hostile Arabs to bring Jewish independence to an end. There is no telling how many would claim the right. Elastic estimates assume that no refugee ever died or emigrated.

Washington rendered its own "map" a waste of time when it charted the "right of return" on it. No state can agree to outside dictates about whom it must admit and how many especially Israel, for which this is a matter of life and death. Israel is asked to do so not because it thinks it right, but because sanctimonious Europeans and like-minded guardians of conscience deem it should.

This won't fly. There will be no peace until an Arab leader dares to tell his people that they have been brainwashed for more than a century, victimized by lies rather than by Jewish injustice. So long as the Arabs feel wronged they won't rest until they kill the last Jew in this land. (emphases throughout addad)

Arafat, who summons his premier several times daily to show who's boss, continues to fan the flames of falsehood, and Abu Mazen won't put them out. Both keep fabricating grievances, like the man who finally supplied the 1936 Jaffans with conclusive evidence of the Jewish crime.

He dipped his hands in the blood of two slain and mutilated Jews and ran shouting: "Here's the blood the Jews spilled." Furious frenzy ensued.

O, Canada. Oh. Canada? Oi! Canada

Anti-semitism hits Canada (again)

Grasshopa notes this

Vandalized scrawled graffitti on Herzliah High School yesterday. Among the messages written were "Free Palestine" and "Die Sharon." I'm of course angry, but hardly surprised. After all, this isn't the first time type of thing has happened in Canada or any other place with a population sympathetic to the Palestinians. Assuming this was perpetuated by Arabs, this act is doubly sad, because according to the story, a similar incident happened at a Muslim school.

Oh, and this school was my girlfriend's high school, so on her behalf, I'd like to give these cowards a hearty fuck you.

The Arab World's Refugees

While the question of the refugees is one of the major issues supposedly holding back the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, we should not forget or cast aside the Arab world's refugees of 1948--the Jewish ones, that is, from Arab lands. Hey, if the Palestinians will not let the past be forgotten, why should we?

My grandmother was born in Marakesh, Morocco, to a relatively wealthy family. When the Second World War broke out, her family was forced to move to Casablanca, and hid away from the violence that--thankfully, in her case--never came. Once the war was over, she walked across North Africa to Algeria, carrying her little sister who suffered from a heart-disorder on her back. From there they made it to France, trained with the socialist-Zionist youth movement Hashomer Hatzair, and finally found refuge on a Kibbutz in Israel. Her parents later joined her, forced to leave all of their property and wealth in Morocco, making it with no more than the clothes on their back to Israel.

Her story is only one of the 900,000 Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews who were forcibly expelled from the Arab lands in the aftermath of WWII. As the oldest ethnicity of the Middle East, chronicling a 4,000 year history in the region, do these Jews not deserve the same rights that the World community would afford the 750,000 Palestinians who either fled or were forced out of their homes in 1948 during the encroachment of the Arab armies on the fledgling Zionist state?

Itamar Levin makes a number of good points in the Israeli Globes newspaper: Israel must take the initiative and fully chronicle the claims of Israel's Middle Eastern Jews. Only when there will be hard, official evidence will the State of Israel be able to put its claims up against the Palestinian claims of retribution. Such research has a more important goal, though: proving once and for all to the world that this is our region and our history, and that the Jewish people have no other place to call home.

U.S. says Iranian threat growing


Israel has long maintained that Iran was their biggest threat. The US, now aware of the potential threat from Iran, is uncertain what to do about it.

It [Iran] appears to be intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. It's stepped up its biological and chemical arms programs. It's No. 1 on the State Department's list of terrorism sponsors, and intelligence officials say it's harboring some senior al-Qaida leaders.

Iran, some senior administration officials privately concede, is as big a threat to the United States and American interests as Iraq ever was, probably bigger. But they don't want to talk about Iran because, they admit, they don't know what to do about it.

Even among the Bush administration hard-liners who first pushed to topple Saddam Hussein, there's no consensus about how to deal with the Iranian regime, which, as former CIA director James Woolsey puts it, has been "at war with us for nearly a quarter-century."

"They seized our embassy personnel as hostages in 1979 in Tehran. They blew up our embassy and our Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. And they have conducted a wide range of terrorist acts against the United States," Woolsey has said.

Now, U.S. intelligence officials charge, Iran is trying to undermine American efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. There is evidence that Saif al Adel, a senior al-Qaida leader, has found sanctuary in Iran and helped direct last week's bombings in Saudi Arabia, which killed 34 people, eight of them Americans. He and other al-Qaida operatives may be planning further attacks in Saudi Arabia, Kenya and elsewhere, U.S. officials say.

But the American response to the third member of President Bush's "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea, is unlikely to be war, at least not anytime soon.

"I don't see any pressure for conflict or war," said Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington research center, who's served in both the State and Defense departments.

America's options in Iran are limited. The U.S. military has its hands full in Iraq.

And unlike with Iraq, the U.N. Security Council hasn't ordered Iran to dispose of weapons of mass destruction.

The Iranian government is even harder to deal with, administration officials say, because it's set a new standard for divided government.

President Mohammad Khatami and his supporters in the Iranian Parliament deny that Iran is supporting terrorism or harboring al-Qaida renegades. The Shiite Muslim clerics who hold supreme power and their allies in the Revolutionary Guard, meanwhile, underwrite terrorist groups, shelter their leaders and send weapons to Palestinian terrorists.

"When we ask the Iranians we talk to about these activities, they say they don't know anything about them," said one senior U.S. official, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity. "The ones who do know about them are not the ones we talk to." [more]

Lives of Palestinian attacker, Israeli guard entwined in suicide bombing


JERUSALEM (AP) -- They were two young women who had known the pain of seeing a loved one wounded by the conflict that divides their peoples.

A few weeks ago, each made a fateful decision, one that would bring them together over a devastating explosion. Hiba Daraghmeh became a suicide bomber; Hadar Gitlin a security guard whose job was to stop her.

On Monday evening, Daraghmeh, 19, approached the entrance to the Shaarei Amakim shopping mall in the northern Israeli city of Afula. When Gitlin, 21, and a colleague stopped her, Daraghmeh detonated explosives strapped to her body, killing herself, the second guard and two other Israelis.

On Tuesday, Gitlin was fighting for her life.

"She's in very serious condition," her mother, Sara Gitlin, told Army Radio. "She's now in intensive care."

Hadar Gitlin lives in the northern Israeli village of Kfar Baruch. Daraghmeh was from Tubas, a Palestinian village just 27 miles from Kfar Baruch in the West Bank.

"We were totally shocked. We never thought she might do this," said her aunt, Ablah Daraghmeh, 42. "She left a large vacuum in her family."

Pain is not new to either family.

On Jan. 22, 1995, Hadar's sister Mor, a medic in a paratroops unit, was tending to the wounded after a suicide bombing in Beit Lid, near the coastal town of Netanya, when a second suicide bomber struck.

"She was burned on her face, her hands, shrapnel in other parts of her body, her ears," Sara Gitlin said.

She has recovered, but "there's no doubt that when there is a terror attack, it does something to her," Sara Gitlin said.

Nearly three years ago, when the current Palestinian uprising began, Daraghmeh's brother Bakir was badly wounded in a confrontation with Israeli troops near his high school, Ablah Daraghmeh said.

He spent nine days in an intensive care unit and another three months in a regular hospital ward recovering from his injuries, she said. Last July, Israeli police arrested Bakir for plotting a suicide attack. He remains in prison.

After her brother was wounded, Hiba Daraghmeh began reading the Quran daily and wearing a black scarf to cover her face in addition to the traditional headscarf, her aunt said.

A forceful young woman who was in some ways the emotional rock of her family, Daraghmeh dreamed of becoming an English teacher, her aunt said. She was an English literature major at Al-Quds university in Tubas and showed little interest in politics, Ablah Daraghmeh said.

Gitlin also had little interest in politics, said her friend Uzi Reiss, who described her as a warm, friendly woman.

She took the security guard job earlier this month because "she had to earn a living," Reiss said. She was sent home after she failed a routine security test but her bosses called her on Saturday and asked her to come back to work Sunday, he said.

Sometime in the last few weeks, Daraghmeh was recruited to be a suicide bomber by the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and equipped by Islamic Jihad, according to sources in those groups. The two groups have worked together several times in the past, though the secular Al Aqsa is linked to the mainstream Fatah movement, while Islamic Jihad is a violent Muslim group.

On Monday, Gitlin was scheduled to work until 4 p.m., but her replacement was late and she had to stay on, her mother said.

At 5:14 p.m., Daraghmeh walked up to Gitlin and another guard, who were searching shoppers at the entrance to the mall, and blew herself up.

Both women's families were devastated.

"We don't believe that this kind of action helps us or helps our cause," Ablah Daraghmeh said. "It just causes trouble. It causes sadness to the family ... to lose a young girl with a great future ahead."

Sara Gitlin lamented her horrifying feeling of deja vu.

"The same thing happens to us again ... it's difficult for everyone," she told the radio. "I just hope that there will be some solution to stopping this terror."

The Right Man? Cont.

In an excellent article printed in the Ottawa Citizen, David Warren writes about the recent developments concerning the Roachmap. The article is entitled, "Carrot approach isn't working, it's time to bring in the stick" and includes the following excerpt (bold font added):

Hamas and Fatah have gone back into action in response to the latest "road map to hell." They do this without fail whenever the diplomatic button gets pressed on their behalf. They relax when it doesn't -- and as they were doing for the last many months. The theory behind this is a simple one -- the one-two punch, in which the political arm exploits diplomatic pressure on Israel, while the terrorist arm plays on Israel's longing for security.

Each peace offering -- at least, each offering that includes carrots but no sticks, like the latest "road map" -- is a new reward for such behaviour. When U.S. President George W. Bush, as yesterday in Washington, expresses his determination to pursue peace regardless of the terror hits on Israel -- and especially when he communicates this idea to the new Palestinian prime minister, Abu Mazen -- he plays right into the terrorists' hands. He might as well be saying, "Go ahead, kill as many Jews as you can, that won't stop us making concessions to you."

The alternative is to follow the principles enunciated in the president's excellent speech at the University of South Carolina last Friday, in which the key phrase was: "The future of peace requires the defeat of terror." Sticks work better than carrots to this end, and unless the entire Palestinian leadership can be convinced that they have something to lose by playing these games -- something big, heavy, and final -- their attitude won't change. They'll continue to say they are powerless to stop the terror cells they have armed, trained, encouraged, and directed.

What links Jerusalem with Riyadh with Baghdad, and ultimately with every other city in the Middle East, is the carrots. Wherever Colin Powell or senior members of his State Department go to offer more, there will be violence. Wherever the stick is waved -- as recently in Iraq -- there will be fresh thinking.

My kindgom for a car

Two fine tidbits via James Taranto (WSJ)

Al Qaeda's 'Intellectual Base'
In an Associated Press dispatch from Riyadh, Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, has some interesting things to say about internal al Qaeda politics:

Prince Bandar, who is known for handling some of his country's most delicate diplomatic tasks, told reporters after returning to Saudi Arabia from Washington that Saudi authorities had obtained information during recent months that al-Qaida had been wracked by internal divisions.

Saudi officials believed that al-Qaida leaders were so split that they didn't want to risk carrying out any attacks in Saudi Arabia, which is bin Laden's birthplace, in order to maintain their intellectual base within the Gulf kingdom.

"(But) they have mended their differences and decided to come out," said Prince Bandar, who is known for his close relations with the U.S. administration.

Since Sept. 11 many observers have called on moderate Muslims to denounce their terror-supporting coreligionists. An editorial in today's Arab News, citing the suicide bombings in Riyadh and Casablanca (but not those in Israel) does just that:

The biggest victim of all is Islam. The actions of the fanatics feed Islamophobia. They send the warped message that Islam is a religion drenched in blood. They must stop. But it is not enough to say that this is the work of a minuscule minority, that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are sickened by these attacks. It is not enough to condemn. It is not even enough to hunt them down and punish them. The world has to see that the cancer threatening the Muslim world is being cut out--vigorously so. Unless something is done, it will create a backlash of its own--against Muslims, against Islam.

Such candor isn't limited to the English-language Saudi press. The Arab News also reprints an article from Okaz, an Arabic-language paper in Jeddah, whose author, Saiful Islam ibn Saud, observes:

Did last week's bombings in Riyadh come as a surprise? Those who know what our children are being taught about Islam, their teachers and the kind of ideas they are constantly fed were not surprised. Those who listen to cassette recordings--which in reality have no basis in Islam--and believe what is said in the recordings were not surprised. Those who listen to what is often said at Friday sermons were not surprised. Those who know how people who follow different schools of thought are ridiculed and treated with contempt were not surprised.

"Any person who digs into the root causes of last week's explosions and the resulting death and destruction will not be shocked at what actually happened," the article continues. It's a refreshing contrast to the all-too-common denial not only in the Arab world but among the left and the far right in the West as well.

The World's Smallest Violin
In an article from the Saudi paper al-Madinah, translated by the Arab News, Hamoud Al-Ghathami describes a horrible American injustice:

My granddaughter, Mashael, a student at King Fahd Academy in Washington, recently won a prize in a local competition. The prize was a luxury car, but her happiness was short-lived. When she went to collect the prize, the organizers refused to give it to her because, according to them, prizes were only intended for those who hold American nationality. The news was devastating. Mashael was not prepared for such a shock. Imagine an excited girl, eagerly awaiting a prize she won fairly in an open competition being told she could not win because of her nationality!

Of course, if Mashael lived in Saudi Arabia, she wouldn't even be allowed to drive because of her sex

Palestinians: Arafat ouster would force Abbas to quit

If he stays, he is Arafat's puppet; if he goes he is Arafat's puppet. If Arafat stays, nothing changes. The Palestinian plan to keep Arafat around so he can steal more money and continue terrorism

Expelling Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat will only complicate matters for PA Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and his new cabinet, PA officials in Ramallah warned Monday.

"Abbas will have to pack and leave the same night Arafat is deported," one official said. "There is no reason why Abbas should stay."

He said Abbas, who is seen by many Palestinians as an American puppet, would face accusations of colluding with Israel and the US in getting rid of Arafat.

"The Palestinian street will not accept Abbas and [Minister for Security Affairs Muhammad] Dahlan if Arafat is removed by force," he said. "Arafat remains as popular as ever because most Palestinians believe Abbas and Dahlan were imposed on the PA leadership to serve Israel's security interests."

Another PA official said that deporting Arafat to the Gaza Strip or to any Arab country would lead to an upsurge in violence and total anarchy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. "Who said that the attacks would stop if President Arafat is in Gaza City or southern Sudan," he said.

"On the contrary, we will have more suicide attacks against Israel. In addition to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Fatah will also resume its attacks to retaliate against the expulsion of its leader.
"This would be a big gift to the Islamic groups.

Abbas and Dahlan will never be able to reign in the extremists if something happens to Arafat."
PA sources pointed out that the majority of the commanders of the PA security forces, who remain loyal to Arafat, have already made it clear that they refuse to take orders from Dahlan.

A top Fatah activist in the West Bank threatened to topple Abbas's cabinet if Arafat is expelled or harmed. "We will declare an all-out war on Israel and Abbas's cabinet," he said. "We don't want another [former Israeli-backed South Lebanon Army commander] Antoine Lahad here."

Meanwhile, it was business as usual at Arafat's compound in Ramallah Monday, and he seemed unperturbed by rumors that Israel was mulling expelling him.

However, PA security officials said they were expecting "something big" to happen on Sunday night. "People here were very nervous," a member of Arafat's Force 17 said. "We were expecting the tanks to come and we didn't sleep all night."

Speaking to reporters at the entrance to his battered compound after receiving a group of French parliamentarians, a smiling Arafat said in response to a question about his possible deportation: "This is not the first time they talk about this. I'm committed to the peace treaty I signed with my late partner [Yitzhak] Rabin. I'm committed to the road map plan, and we are waiting for the Quartet to succeed in convincing the Israelis to accept the plan."

The Right Man? Yeah, Right...

Among the agonizing news stories that ran yesterday was this one from the World Tribune:

U.S. gives priority to Palestinian state over Mideast democracy

The Bush administration has decided to rank its pro-democracy drive in the Middle East behind other U.S. priorities in the region, such as the establishment of a Palestinian state and the reconstruction of Iraq.

Officials said the State Department has helped redefine a call by President George Bush last year that sought to encourage democracy as a key to Middle East stability and peace. They said the administration has now agreed that the State Department would focus on the establishment of a Palestinian state and the reconstruction of Iraq while it lowers the profile of any pro-democracy effort in the region.

Democracy, freedom and human rights are the fundamentals of the Right; how come "The Right Man" has ordered democracy to be ranked behind the "establishment of a Palestinian state", which has never been a fundamental value of the Right? And wasn't democracy listed as a precondition for granting the "Palestinians" a sovereign state (Bush' speech of 24 June 2002)?

Insight into the answer, and into the abyss facing Israel as a consequence, may be gleaned from a book by an insider who is as loyal and as sympathetic to Bush as they come:

Frum, David. The Right Man. New York: Random House, 2003. See esp. Ch. 13, "Promised Land".

In what follows I borrow the facts and quotations from Frum, but give them my own interpretation, which differs markedly from Frum's. In the subsequent text, page numbers in brackets refer to David From's book.

To set the stage, David Frum notes that (p. 247), "Bush entered office with fewer Jewish friends and supporters than any president since perhaps Dwight Eisenhower. There were no Jews in his cabinet and few on his staff".

A few months into his administration, Bush delivered a speech in May 2001. David Frum, who wrote the speech, notes (p. 252):

Bush had visited the country for the first time in 1998 and had been startled by Israel's smallness and vulnerability. The speech [given by Bush in May 2001] built on his experience: "For a Texan, a first visit to Israel is an eye-opener. At the narrowest point, it's only eight miles from the Mediterranean to the old armistice line: That's less than from the top to the bottom of Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. The whole of pre-1967 Israel is only about six times the size of the King Ranch. It's a small country that has lived under threat throughout its existence. At my first meeting of my National Security Council, I told them that a top foreign-policy priority of my administration is the safety and security of Israel. My administration will be steadfast in supporting Israel against terrorism and violence, and in seeking the peace for which all Israelis pray."

While the text of this speech reflected understanding of Israel's predicament, the reality was that six months into Arafat's intifada, "Bush's decision to pass responsibility for the Middle East to the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency empowered those foreign policy bureaucrats most eager to appease the Arab oil states" (p. 254). Indeed, even as early as mid-2001, Powell was already working on a plan, "announcing a three-year timetable for the creation of a Palestinian state defended by an international military force. When a suicide bomber blew up a Sbarro's pizzeria in central Jerusalem, killing fifteen people, including six children and three Americans, the State Department's spokesman condemned Israel for retaliating. On August 28 came another condemnation of Israel, this one coordinated with Great Britain." Blair, one should recall, is another one of those who is supposed to be Israel's friend.

It is important to underscore that offering Arafat a state with international guarantees in the midst of the terror he was unleashing - the very phenomenon we see today - is nothing new, but rather Powell's policy dating back to August 2001, if not earlier. But, as David Frum notes, things got much worse (pp. 254-5):

You might think that September 11 would have discredited the old terror master. Bush said that if you fed, sheltered, clothed, or armed a terrorist, you were a terrorist. The Palestinian Authority consistently did all those things. But as Bush focussed on danger at home and the war in Afghanistan, his State Department reverted to its old Gulf War theory that the United States could earn the right to defend its interests in the Middle East only by first ostentatiously whacking Israel.

On October 2, 2001, the same day that Palestinian gunmen burst into a settlement in the Gaza Strip, randomly shooting civilian residents and killing a young courting couple, President Bush announced his personal support for a Palestinian state. "The idea of a Palestinian state has always been a part of a vision..." Two weeks later, Tony Blair invited Yasser Arafat to 10 Downing Street, and stepped out to announce that Britain too now supported the prompt creation of a state for Arafat.

On October 17, four members of Arafat's personal entourage entered a Jerusalem hotel and assassinated an Israeli cabinet minister after breakfast.

What is shocking in particular is the fact that these events happened just one month after 9-11, and coddling the terrorist Arafat had not changed one bit. The only change that I was able to discern from Frum's narrative was Bush' refusal to have any further meetings with Arafat. The Bush decision to shun Arafat in this way was strengthened after January 5, 2002, when Israel intercepted the Karine A arms ship and Arafat denied culpability. Bush went one step further and on March 30, declaring (p. 258),

I fully understand Israel's need to defend herself; I respect that. It's a country that has seen a wave of suicide bombers coming into the hearts of their cities and killing innocent people. That country has a right to defend herself.

But the influence of Foggy Bottom was not about to be diminished and a few days later, on April 4, 2002, Bush gave Arafat yet another chance to reform himself (pp. 258-9):

Everyone must choose; you're either with the civilized world, or you're with the terrorists. All in the Middle East also must choose and must move decisively in word and deed against terrorist acts.
...
I call on the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority, and our friends in the Arab world to join us in a clear message to terrorists: Blowing yourself up does not help the Palestinian cause. On the contrary, suicide bombing missions could well blow up the best and only hope for a Palestinian state.

In the meantime, the rank and file of the Republican party showed an overwhelming support for Israel (67%) and not for the "Palestinians" (8%). Still, when the time came to deliver the June 24, 2002 speech, there again was the promise of a "Palestinian" state. True, it was predicated on electing "new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror" and on building "a practising democracy, based on tolerance and liberty". But...

What does history tell us about conditional rewards granted to Arabs generally and to the "Palestinians" in particular? The rewards are the only thing that remains in their consciousness and propaganda, while the conditions evaporate. Here are but two examples.

In 1921, Churchill appointed the Emir Abdullah as ruler of "Transjordan" (the eastern part of Palestine that the San Remo conference granted the Jews as part of their National Home); this was supposed to be a 6-month temporary appointment, conditional on stopping attacks on the French in Syria. The conditions were not fulfilled and the "temporary appointment" turned permanent - the conditions evaporated, the reward remained. Even worse goes for Oslo: self-determination (autonomy) was contemplated, conditional on specific security and incitement provisions. The conditions evaporated, the reward grew from self-determination to sovereignty.

As for the Bush vision of June 24, the reality is that the "new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror" are Arafat's old guard, with Arafat himself firmly in control. "A practising democracy, based on tolerance and liberty" continues incitement with no elections in sight. But the reward of sovereignty still has a date: 2005. What was supposed to be a sequential development, i.e., conditions fulfilled and then a state, now becomes a parallel process, with Israel being squeezed as usual. Which brings us back to the quotation from World Tribune with which I began this piece: even the "democracy" objective itself has been downgraded, ranking behind the creation of a sovereign "Palestine"!

Two questions come to mind to conclude this review:

First, the developments being what they are, how could David Frum have come to the conclusion that (p.248)

It is, then, really quite a stunning turnabout of history that George W. Bush should have emerged as one of the staunchest friends of Israel ever to occupy the Oval Office,

unless, of course, others were so much worse ("in the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king"). To me, Bush is NOT the Right man at all, at least not with regard to his policy towards Israel.

Second question: As I see it, the only genuine support for Israel is rooted in the rank and file of the Republican party. Why is this support not cultivated, nourished and marshalled? As earlier articles have shown (Wake up, and All Hail Islam Online), just last weekend (17-18 May, 2003) Washington saw a Zionist-Christian gathering of some 1,000 delegates, but one would hardly know such a thing transpired, judging by Israel's PR or the media - Washington Times and Islam Online excepted. What kind of way is this to wage a war?

Israel News Update: ten articles

A two-state solution is no solution

Rachel Neuwirth is a Los Angeles based analyst on the board of directors of the West Coast Region of the American Jewish Congress and the chairperson of its Middle East committee. She wrote

It appears that the continuing suicide-homicide culture is deeply entrenched and widely justified by the majority of the Arab Palestinians. The Palestinian leadership, with the support of the Arab World, chooses to express its ideology, art, and literature via vile affronts to humanity, and towards Israel in particular. The culture of "Jew-killing" is so well entrenched within Palestinian culture that security for Israel is not possible short of a total non-contiguous separation between the two people. How can Israelis be expected to live "side-by-side" with those constantly threatening them?

Why does the Left constantly ignore the Palestinians' lack of humanity, decency, and morality? There can never be any justification of such savagery! It must be stopped immediately and by all means!

The urgent need to deal with the hordes reared in a suicide/homicide-breeding culture is dire. It takes precedence over any other political problem. Yet, this crystal clear reality escapes some intellectuals, whom I call "intellectual terrorists," because they support terrorists, at least tacitly, and that includes the appeasers.

The appeasers use flawed etiology to twist cause and effect and have also set out to delegitimize Israel as a Jewish national homeland. The appeasers put the onus on the firemen instead of on the arsonist. Expecting to "sweet talk" our way out of this mess is pure folly.

[...] Arabs who refuse to live in peace with Israel must relocate to other lands -- and as far away as possible, if need be. Terrorism must be fought relentlessly. A military solution is the only viable option to combat and abate continuous horrific terrorism. There should be no compromise in dealing with terrorists or those who harbor them.

To the appeasers who claim that Israel commits "state terrorism," let it be known that Israel acts with the highest regard for human rights. Considering the horrific and continual barbarism Israel has had to face since its re-establishment as the Jewish State, she has acted with remarkable restraint.

President Bush, please know this: the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians cannot live side by side in peace. This is a proven fact. It's time to face it. Your vision of a Palestinian state in the heart of Israel is not feasible considering the nearly century-old experience of vicious Arab hatred and terrorism. Additional decades of living side by side with a Palestinian state will destroy both Israel and the Arab Palestinians! It will merely be a preparation for a future, more devastating "Intifada 3!" How much more blood must be spilled for you to realize this? MORE

She is one gutsy lady and she is associated with the American Jewish Congress. It looks like we are going mainstream with our opposition to a two state solution.

The solution is a no brainer

But the world refuses to acknowledge it.

Rachel Neuwirth is a Los Angeles based analyst on the board of directors of the West Coast Region of the American Jewish Congress and the chairperson of its Middle East committee. She writes

President Bush, in his speech of June 24, 2002, said: "There is simply no way to achieve peace until all parties fight terror." Obviously, we can't even contemplate the next step until terrorism is destroyed. In addition, the creation of a 23rd Arab state as the resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict ignores the potential that it will be a terrorist state; therefore, every means must be employed to insure that it is a democratic society, as president Bush enunciated. If not, Israel and the West will not be able to achieve victory over terrorism.

A "road map" that will create a Second Palestinian Arab State (the first is Jordan) can only be considered once the entire Arab world ends the culture of hatred and incitement that permeates their educational, religious and political spheres. Unfortunately, the "road map" just released does not detail the steps necessary to achieve peace in the Middle East. A new democratic state can never be created unless a people that is trustworthy and adhere to the rule of law and democratic principles are created first. Furthermore, sadly, the landscape of the potential Arab Palestinian State is infested with terrorist organizations, which state loud and clear that their ultimate goal is to destroy Israel.

The fact is that most Arab Palestinians still believe that terrorism and violence are the ways to achieve their goals. Under the newly appointed Palestinian Prime Minster, Abu Mazen, children continue to be taught hatred for Israel and the West, as well as that their ultimate goal is to become a shaeed (martyr). On official Palestinian Authority television, on May 4, 2003, the director of the PA Children's Aid Association, Mrs. Firial Hillis, was interviewed about the PA's education policies. The interviewer began with a reporter, Samir Shahin, describing the attitude of children at a PA school: "The children only wanted to leave [school] and throw stones at the Israeli soldiers, and to reach shahada, 'dying for Allah'. They aspired to shahada as a first priority."

The Palestinian-run Jerusalem Media & Communication Center's recent poll reported that only 15.2% of all Palestinian Arabs believe that a violence-free approach best serves Palestinian interests. The overwhelming majority of Arab Palestinians (65.3%) support continuing the violence against Israel; 60.5% support "military operations" inside Israel; and 68% endorse suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. An earlier poll recorded that 51% of Palestinians said the goal of the 20-month-old uprising should extend to "liberating all of historic Palestine," the territory that includes present-day Israel. Only 43% said they would be satisfied with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, a.k.a. the West Bank. Furthermore, 79% expressed support for the revolt in some way.

Just 1.8% said they trusted Abu Mazen. The false premise on which the "road map" is based is reliance on the ability of Abu Mazen to enforce democratic reform and eliminate the terrorist infrastructure. Yet, it is crystal clear that if Abu Mazen tries to eliminate Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Brigades - Arab Palestinian terrorist organizations according to the United States - he may not survive.

President Bush, in his speech of June 24, 2002, also said: "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." Is it not true that the 'newly' appointed PA prime minister is compromised by terror? It was recently revealed that Abu Mazen financed the murder of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich Olympics. In fact, Abu Mazen has been Yasser Arafat's Number Two since the PLO's founding in 1964 and, therefore, responsible for all of the suicide bombings and every terrorist incident that has occurred since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, and more. And terrorism continues; Abu Mazen has not been able to make the slightest impact towards stopping it.

It is tragic that President Bush's clear call to end terrorism first is being emasculated by the concept of the "Quartet," including Secretary Colin Powell's State Department, which rewards terrorism and has the potential to lay the blueprint for the destruction of Israel. If the goal is to end terrorism, then why did Secretary Powell go to Syria to meet with President Bashar Assad, whose regime is the chief supporter of terrorism now that the Taliban and Saddam Hussein have been ousted?

Any attempt by the Quartet or the State Department to enforce the "road map" only rewards those who perpetrate terrorism and is the ultimate act of appeasement. After showing such valiant leadership in the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush should insist on the precise implementation of the steps he outlined in his June 24th speech.

To do any less is to reverse all of the progress made so far.

Twenty-four leaders write to Bush against the Roadmp

Subsequent to the Zionist-Christian Summit in Washington, D.C., 17-18 May, 2003, twenty-four leader who participated sent the following letter to President Bush. The letter may be found on the site of American Values.

LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH, MAY 19, 2003

05/19/2003

May 19, 2003

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We commend you on your courageous decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power and promote democratic institutions in the Middle East. Your leadership is providing a real opportunity to defeat terrorism and bring freedom and stability to a troubled region of the world.

It is for that very reason that we want to share with you our deep concerns about your well-intentioned road map leading to the creation of a Palestinian state. When you outlined the road map in your landmark speech of June 24, 2002 you laid down very clear “guide posts.” You called for a “new and different Palestinian leadership… not compromised by terror.” You called on that new leadership to wage a “sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure.” You made it clear there must be real action on these requirements, not just empty words.

Already those clear requirements are being undermined by the other members of the so-called “Quartet” – the European Union, the United Nations and Russia. You and the United States are being pressured to show we are “evenhanded” and are being urged to pressure Israel to make concessions if there is merely “progress” in these areas.

Mr. President, it would be morally reprehensible for the United States to be “evenhanded” between democratic Israel, a reliable friend and ally that shares our values, and the terrorist infested Palestinian infrastructure that refuses to accept the right of Israel to exist at all.

Americans were rightly shocked and horrified after September 11th, 2001 to see celebrations in the Palestinian neighborhoods expressing joy at the death of over 3,000 of our fellow citizens in New York, at the Pentagon and in the skies over Pennsylvania. Similar demonstrations broke out at the news of early U.S. military setbacks in the Iraq war and every terrorist bombing in Israel is also greeted with grotesque displays of glee. Unfortunately, public opinion polls show at least half of the Palestinian people support the current terrorist intifada against Israel. In view of this reality, the “road map” could lead to a disaster.

The way to guarantee that it doesn’t is to follow simple, but important, principles including:


1. There can be no viable peace unless Israel’s neighbors concede its right to exist..


2. The Palestinian leadership must end the propaganda that permeates schools, cultural institutions and government owned media, that teaches Nazi inspired hatred of Jews and incitements to violence.

3. Terrorism against Israel sponsored by Syria and Iran and carried out by Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Brigades and other terrorist groups must stop and the terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled.

4. Israel has a right to defend itself when attacked and should not be pressured by the United States, the United Nations or anyone else to be passive in the face of attacks on its citizens.

5. There is no moral equivalency between the free nation of Israel that believes in the consent of the governed and individual human dignity and the terrorist thugs that celebrate the deaths of innocent Israelis and Americans.


Mr. President we hope and trust that in the tough months of negotiations ahead you will adhere to these principles, which you have embraced before. We look forward to working with you to insure that there is a just peace in the Middle East that recognizes democratic Israel’s right to exist free from terrorism and for all people of good will in the region to raise their children in peace and security.

Sincerely,
Gary L. Bauer
American Values

Frank Eiklor
President
Shalom International

James M. Hutchens
Chairman
Christian Friends of Israel

Marlin Maddoux
Chairman
USA Radio Network

Dr. Adrian Rogers
Pastor
Belleview Baptist Church

Jerry Falwell
Chancellor
Liberty University

Dr. D. James Kennedy
Pastor
Coral Ridge Ministries

Ed McAteer
President
Religious Roundtable

Rev. Lou Sheldon
Chairman
Traditional Values Coalition

Joseph Farah
President
WorldNetDaily

Dr. Richard Land
President
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention

Elwood McQuaid
Editor-in-Chief
Friends of Israel

William E. Sutter
Executive Director
Friends of Israel

Janet Folger
President
Faith-2-Action

Ester Levens
CEO and Founder
National Unity Coalition For Israel

Rev. George Morrison
Senior Pastor
Faith Bible Chapel International

Paul Weyrich
Chairman and CEO
Free Congress Foundation

Rev. John Hagee
Pastor
Hagee Ministries

David A. Lewis
President Christians
United For Israel

William Murray
President
Religious Freedom Coalition

Herbert Zweibon
Chairman
Americans For a Safe Israel

Richard A. Hellman
President
The Christians’ Israel Public Action Campaign

Michael Little
President
The Christian Broadcasting Network

Janet Parshall
Nationally Syndicated Talk-Show Host

Join the discussion

Over the last few days, I have posted several times about the Zionist Leadership Summit, Washington 17-18, 2003, because it seemed to highlight what’s radically wrong with pro-Israel advocacy.

I should emphasize from the outset that this Summit was no gossip session among neighbours who represent nobody but themselves. The Washington meeting
was attended by leaders and other participants behind whom stand some 45 million US citizens. In turn, these people represent a major component of the Republic party. That is why I am so concerned about missing the opportunity to inform the public in North America about the meeting, its proceedings, and its strong support for Israel.

As a consequence of this concern, I wrote to a selected number of pro-Israel blogger, in an attempt to organize some co-ordination where none exists. The letter I sent
stated, inter alia:

Following up on the poor coverage of the Washington meeting of 17-18 May, 2003, I am in the process of compiling a list of pro-Israel bloggers, group e-mailers and equivalent, who are willing to commit themselves to disseminating pro-Israel action information in the future.

The idea is that if any one of the people who join this initiative receives information on meetings, rallies, petitions etc., he/she will inform all members of the initiative group, who, in turn, will post or disseminate the information further by other means. If you are interested in joining this initiative, please inform me.

In response, I received the following e-mail from a fellow-blogger, Tom Schaller:

This is something that I've been talking to another friend about quite often lately. Not just Israel's PR battle, but that of the entire West in general and America's Right specifically.

Part of the problem is that our Leftist and Muslim enemies have been allowed decades to work their on PR campaign unopposed. We've thought ourselves invulnerable because, hey, we're the good guys. We just have to keep on keepin' on and the world will love us for our good works, our integrity and our honesty. Well, that hasn't worked so well after all.

The good news is that Islam and the Left have exposed themselves as allies in hate and brokers of lies. America and the West are waking up to this and they are gradually becoming sick and tired of it all and "coming over to the light." I’ve written about this at more length several times over the past months, including just a week or so ago, so I won't go over it all in detail here. But you see what I'm getting at.

We (the blogging community) have been doing a good job of showing the truth about the Left and Islam. But that's only half of the job that needs doing. The other half, what we've been doing poorly, is marketing OURSELVES as the side or cause that people should join and support. To reach a broad spectrum of possible supporters we need to market ourselves (in this case that means our collected, positive ideologies) in various ways. We have to make ourselves appealing to many different groups.
Being the good guys isn't enough. We have to make being the good guys cool, sexy and exciting. At the same time we have to become educated in the beliefs and methods of our enemies. We need to read his holy books. We need to learn his language. We need to understand the consequences and intentions of his policies. We need to study him and know him in his every aspect.

I have posted this exchange because I hope that it will serve as a starting point for an on-blog discussion around these questions:

- What is your assessment of the current status of pro-Israel advocacy?
- What can we, bloggers, e-mailers, and blog readers, do to help in the immediate and short term?
- What can we do to improve co-ordination and co-operation among bloggers with the object of getting the word out?
- What can we do to include non-bloggers, such as organizations and institutions?

If you have ideas or concrete suggestions - join the discussion by either posting an article (if you are an article-contributor), posting a comment, or sending an article to me for posting.

Thanks.

Action: ZOA Mission to Washington, June 17-18, 2003

Ever since Prime Minister Barak made his incredibly generous offer to Chairman Arafat at the Camp David in July of 2000, the Israeli people have been confronted with unprecedented attacks of terrorism against their civilian population resulting in more than 750 fatalities and thousands of injuries.

As America is engaged in fighting a War on Terrorism, we should not reward two and a half years of unprecedented terrorism against the Israeli people with Palestinian Statehood. The Road Map does not even require single day,hour or minute in which the Palestinians are to prove that they have truly renounced terrorism.

If there was ever a time to come to Washington, and make your voices heard it is NOW.

COME to the ZOA Mission to Washington on June 17th and 18th.

Have Dinner with Ambassador Danny Ayalon, Embassy Spokesman Mark Regev and a famous anti-terrorism expert.

Lobby your Senators and Member of Congress against rewarding Palestinian terrorism with statehood, as well as for important pieces of legislation such as the Koby Mandell Act and the Syria Accountability Act .

Have lunch with members of Congress and Senators.

Meet with Representatives of the Executive Branch.

People travel to Washington from all over the country for this. We in the Washington area, should just take off one or two days from work to come to the aid of our people.

To register, Call Ariella at (212) 481-1500, or go to www.zoa.org .

Sarah N. Stern
National Policy Coordinator

Zionist Organization of America
202-204-2560 (office)
202-204-2561 (fax)
301-922-9667 (cell)
sstern@zoa.org

Basta with "Visions"
(Do you read Wesley Pruden?)

Here is an inducement From a piece in today's Washington Times:

The president vows to "move forward" on "the road to peace" in the Middle East, and he sounds like a man who is trying to look forward to the trip no matter where his road map leads. "We're still on the road to peace," George W. told reporters yesterday at the White House. "It's just going to be a bumpy road, and I'm not going to get off the road until we reach the vision."

A president has to be an optimist, but when even a president starts seeing visions that nobody else sees it may be time to wake him up.(Emphasis added).

Radical Palestinian Groups Close Offices

Once again, found at InstaPundit.com

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - Doorbells and phones went unanswered at the Damascus offices of Palestinian militant groups the United States accuses of terrorism. Instead of veteran campaigners ready to rail against Israel for hours, visitors were greeted by posters of Palestinian ``martyrs'' on the walls outside - and silence.

All signs pointed to what neither the Palestinians nor the Syrians will acknowledge: Syria has bowed to U.S. pressure and curbed the radicals it has hosted for years.

Reached at home Tuesday, Ahmed Jibril, secretary general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, confirmed that his group and nine others have closed their Damascus offices, but refused to say why.

Jibril, who usually can be found holding forth on the Palestinian cause and Israel at his group's downtown Damascus office, would only refer a reporter to his assertion last week that Syria had not asked him to close, but that he would be ready to ``meet the Syrian demands if such demands are useful for Syrian policy.''

Leading Palestinian exile Khaled al-Fahoum, who first reported the closures Monday, said Syria imposed no pressure, but the Palestinian factions had acted out of concern for ``Syria's stability and security'' amid tensions in the region and U.S. accusations against Syria.

At a news conference late Monday, Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa was asked if his government had closed the Palestinian offices.

``This is a Palestinian affair, not Syrian,'' he said.

It would be humiliating for either Syria or the Palestinians to acknowledge having bowed to pressure from Washington, but they may feel they have little choice. [more]

This morning I posted reference to Victor Davis Hanson's piece which phantasises on what the Falklands episode would have looked like were it treated like the "Palestine" delirium. I am glad to add to the honor roll the comments today by both Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hennetty. True moral clarity. And these two good fellows are listened to by millions every day. (On AM radio, WABC 77). Worth the trouble.

Facing the Palestinian Reality.

Always right- on- target, Martin Kimel notes the following (check out links in his text)

Facing the Palestinian Reality. Once again we have Bush erroneously suggesting that some fringe radicals are hijacking the peace process:

"I have confidence we can move the peace process forward," he said. "It's clear there are people there who cannot stand the thought of peace."

Yet in the same CNN story, we have Palestinian "Foreign Minister" Nabil Sha'ath suggesting that a Palestinian "civil war" would ensue if Abbas tried to disarm Hamas.

* * *
Our friends John Ward Anderson and Molly Moore (ctd.). Today's story isn't quite as bad as most of the dynamic duo's, but there's still plenty to criticize:
The spurt of violence against Israelis, the most intensive in a year, has jeopardized a tenuous effort by the Bush administration to reinvigorate a peace process crippled by 2 1/2 years of Palestinian violence against Israeli occupation that has terrorized Israeli society and devastated many Palestinians' lives.

What does the phrase "violence against Israeli occupation" actually mean? Hamas and Islamic Jihad consider Israel's "occupation" to date back to Israel's founding in 1948. As readers of this space know, WaPo's foreign editor takes the absurd position that Hamas' goals are "ambiguous."

Israeli, Palestinian and U.S. officials, including President Bush, insisted that they remain committed to pursuing the peace efforts. But the rash of suicide bombings against shoppers, rush-hour commuters, Jewish settlers and Israeli soldiers during the last 48 hours -- killing 12 Israelis and five Palestinian bombers -- has rekindled the passions and hardened the political positions that have doomed previous attempts to curb the violence. . . .

Including the number of Palestinian suicide bombers among the dead together with the number of dead innocent Israelis whom the bombers killed is offensive. It suggests a moral equivalence that does not exist.

Militant groups may "have learned something about our way of operating that enables them to be more efficient," said a senior Israeli security official.

Did the Israeli official actually use the term "militant groups" or did he say "terrorist groups?" If the latter, then the articie either should have quoted him or, at a minimum, said something like, "Groups the Israelis consider terrorist organizations . . . ." Otherwise, the statement would be misleading.
* * *
More Arab Lip-service About the Plight of the Palestinians: The Lebanese deny public education to non-naturalized Palestinians, deny them certain jobs and deny them the right to own land outside of the camps. Why aren't we hearing denunciations of Lebanon (and its master, Syria) as practicing apartheid? Or is such invective, even though not warranted, strictly reserved for Israel?

Tough to believe this!

Angry Palestinians Lash Out at Militants

Another hat tip to InstaPundit for pointing out this piece in The Guardian

BEIT HANOUN, Gaza Strip (AP) - Palestinian residents of a northern Gaza town demonstrated Tuesday after Israelis destroyed buildings and farms there in a five-day invasion, but in a rare twist, their wrath was directed at Palestinian militants for firing rockets from their property, not at the Israelis.

Israeli forces pulled back to the edge of the town, Beit Hanoun, a letup that came despite a bloody wave of Palestinian suicide bombings that killed 12 bystanders, hinting Israel might not undertake a large-scale punitive military operation that would further weaken the new Palestinian premier, Mahmoud Abbas.[ ...] Meanwhile, Israeli troops moved back to the outskirts of Beit Hanoun in northeast Gaza but continued to hold territory inside the Gaza fence, where militants often set up and fire primitive Qassam rockets at the Israeli town of Sderot, less than a half-mile away.

Two hours after the pullback, angry residents of Beit Hanoun, a town of 35,000, took to the streets in a spontaneous demonstration, complaining that the militants had caused Israel to destroy their property. It was a rare outburst; most Palestinian demonstrations are aimed against Israel.

The residents said the Israeli military demolished 15 houses, uprooted thousands of trees and damaged the water and sewage systems.

The demonstrators blocked a main road with trash cans, rocks and burning tires in a show of outrage against the militants. Most of the rockets are launched by members of the violent Islamic Hamas.

``They (the militants) claim they are heroes,'' said Mohammed Zaaneen, 30, a farmer, as he carried rocks into the street. ``They brought us only destruction and made us homeless. They used our farms, our houses and our children ... to hide.''

The small, unguided Qassam rockets have crashed into Sderot many times over the past year, causing some damage but no serious injuries.

During the Israeli takeover, eight Palestinians were killed in clashes - four gunmen and four teens, ages 13, 15 and 17. Three of the teens were throwing stones at Israeli tanks when they were shot by troops. Sixty-five residents were wounded, including 20 under the age of 15, doctors said.

All Hail Islam Online

Yup, I mean it this time: All Hail Islam Online.

Yesterday I posted a piece entitled, "Wake up", concerning a Jewish-Christian Summit held last weekend (17-18 May, 2003) in Washington. The Christian forces behind this endeavour (according to the Washington Times) are potentially 45 million strong, a reservoir of good will towards Israel that is unparalleled in size and potential influence. The conference ended with a letter to the US president, rejecting the Roadmap and signed by 22 principal leaders.

The official name of the conference is "Interfaith Zionist Leadership Summit," and if you try to run a google search under this name you'll find a reference to a detailed article at the Islam Online site (also copied at Palestine Chronicles); there is also a shorter reference at Ekklesia, the existence of which was unknown to me until today. Other than the article in Washington Times (to which I alluded yesterday), I could find no reference in the mainstream media. Jerusalem Post, for example, referred to the letter in an article entitled, "American Christian leaders warn Bush on road map", but there is absolutely no hint about the conference or the force behind it. Shame on you, JPost! Ha'Artez is even worse: not a word, only deafening silence.

In all, were it not for Islam Online, the conference would sink into complete obscurity.

Had the Arabs attempted to take over the Israeli PR apparatus, they could not have succeeded better. Surely, these days we all know that if you have the best of all product but you do a poor marketing job, then you might as well have no product at all. And yet, Israel advocates, as best I can see, are doing nothing to publicize initiatives such as the "Interfaith Zionist Leadership Summit," with its potential 45 million supporters.

Under the title, American Zionists Reject Bush 'Road Map', here is what Islam Online had to report (in part):

American Christian and Jewish Zionists have adopted a three-page statement to be delivered to President Bush this week, demanding Palestinian concessions before Israel is asked to return to its pre-1967 borders, which would turn over the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority.

The "Interfaith Zionist Leadership Summit," conference held in Washington May 18, that attracted about 1,000 participants, debated how evangelical Christians could best unite with Jews to support Israel.

The article then continues to paraphrase the Washington Times text, but at least one does get a good idea as to what transpired.

It is a sad day when Israel's supporters must have recourse to Islam Online in order to obtain information on such a vital meeting as the Interfaith Summit.

We had better wake up before the battle for the hearts and minds of North Americans is lost.

Be glad and proud: VDH on our side

This is an absolute must-read. Don't ask why; read it!

And these, too, must be read:

a. (About the globalisation of Hamas).
b. (About the Islamisation of the USA).
c. (About the poor "Palestinians").

Covering up the anti-semitism in the Netherlands

Hat tip to Instapundit, who, as usual, is always on top of things.This extract from Dilacerator yet another example of what is taking place in Europe

[...]This year, the remembrance ceremonies were descrated. There hadn't been much attention paid in the media to this initially, but there are now more reports appearing the papers. Today's edition of the Trouw newspapers has a long article on the events. I shan't translate all of it, but here are salient excerpts:


It was the leader of the D66 Michel Rog from the Amsterdam precinct of de Baarsjes who went to the media. He was furious over what happened on Sunday May 4th at the remembrance ceremony in his neighborbood. But neither the organizers, nor the precinct council, nor the police reported the incident. "Subsequently it turns out that the ceremonies were disrupted in several Amsterdam precincts. That's serious. But everywhere it's been kept quiet, even when reports had been made to the police. Shocking. Some of the incidents have even now not been publicized yet."

[...] The horn sounded, it turned quiet. Almost immediately afterward [..] Rog heard from behind him, further down the street, the chanting of slogans. There was a group of boys, apparently Moroccans, between the ages of 10 and 18. At least five of them chanted "We have to kill the Jews." [In Dutch, this rhymes]

[...] After the ceremony Michel Rog managed to identify together with the neighborhood police officer one of the boys, just a child, who strenuously denied having participated. But a friend of his furnished indirect proof, pleading with the cop "Mister, he did not know there were Jewish people there."


The article goes on to the question whether this is just plain vanilla vandalism of youngsters who don't know any better, or whether there is something deeper going on. The appropriate answer is probably a "duh" here.

Amsterdam-West, where this and other such incidents took place has a large Arab immigrant population, mostly consisting of Moroccans. The schools there, according the article, "find it ever harder to teach about the second world war." Anti-semitism is a way of life there. Most May 4th incidents involve Moroccan youngsters. Playing soccer with the wreaths, shouting anti-semitic slogans, throwing eggs and otherwise disrupting the ceremonies. Some apologists claim it's "just vandalism," that does not wash. These scumbags knew exactly what they were doing, and what the significance of the event was. This was a calculated attack to cause as much offense and grief as possible. These disturbances were very deliberate attempts to offend. On the day when we remember the victims of the Nazis, the Moroccans youths came out and supported the Nazis. They consciously and deliberately aligned themselves with a regime that has become the generic shorthand description of evil.

The newspaper article recites the rise of anti-semitism:


All over the Netherlands the number of complaints of anti-semitism keeps rising. The problem is most visible in Amsterdam, because that's where the biggest Jewish community is. According to the CIDI [Centrum Information and Documentation Israel] it's usually verbal abuse, almost always in Amsterdam, almost always by Moroccan boys. [...] "Yehoud" has become a well-known expletive. Jewish men wearing a yarmulke can be certain nowadays to be accosted. Moroccan boys last year threw stones at synagogue visitors in Amsterdam-West. [...] A few months ago, in a busy shopping street, the house of a Jewish man was vandalized. "JEW" it said with big red letters on the windows."

It's not really news that the Arab immigrants here are virulently anti-Semitic, but the descration of the of May fourth remembrance ceremonies is a further escalation, taking the anti-semitism to a brazen new level. And while the war may have ended over half a century ago, the May ceremonies still play an important role in Dutch life. By disrupting them, the Moroccan thugs have placed themselves even further outside of civilized society than they already were. Choosing the side of the Nazis so blatantly makes it very hard even for the most deluded multiculturalist to defend them. They've been forcibly deblinkered, at least temporarily. It won't take long for new blinkers to grow back on though, but perhaps not all of them will regenerate.

IsraPundit Announcement (re-post)

From time to time, IsraPundit e-mails announcements and articles of special significance. Readers who do not currently receive these announcements and wish to receive them in the future, may add their e-mail address to the mailing list as follows.

Go to this URL: http://4arrow.com/israel/email/emml.php

Enter your e-mail, check "subscribe", and click "submit".

In the new window that appears, check the "public" box and click "subscribe".

Note: The unsubscribe feature is not functioning yet; to unsubscribe, e-mail me at dt804@yahoo.ca.

Special thanks to Mike Glazer for setting up the system for IsraPundit.

Action: The Simon Wiesenthal Center Petition

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is collecting signatures on a petition the text of which is given below; please consider signing (click on the link given above).

Tuesday, May 20, 2003

To:
United States Secretary of State Colin Powell
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan
European Union High Representative Javier Solana
Russian Federation Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov

I join with the 400,000 members of the Simon Wiesenthal Center to urge you to make the dismantling of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure the first pre-requisite of the "roadmap to peace" in the Middle East.

These terrorist groups, who are committed to the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of innocent men, women, and children, operate a terrorist infrastructure freely under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. They are allowed to act with impunity throughout the areas under the jurisdiction of the P.A.

Despite your best efforts to promote a peaceful solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, the infrastructure of terrorism, which constitutes the backbone of the culture of hate and death that threatens to destroy any hope for peaceful co-existence, must be completely dismantled before the “roadmap to peace” can proceed. Otherwise any such discussions would be doomed to failure.

Let our voice be heard!

Action: The Roadmap

I received the following announcement by e-mail.

Join the American Zionist Movement on June 4 in Washington, DC. Hear from experts, analysts, journalists and others on "The Road Map" Where Is It Taking Us?" The one-day program will be held from 9:45 AM - 5:00 PM at B'nai B'rith International, 2020 K Street, NW, in Washington, D.C. Registration is $25 per person.

The program, including presentations by Janine Zacharia of the Jerusalem Post, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and Amb. Dennis Ross (invited) of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy can be viewed at http://www.azm.org/DCprogram.html.

Registration forms can be downloaded in a PDF file format or as Word Document.

It is vital that our voice against the Roadmap be heard!

Patently Dishonest

In his blog HAGANAH, Jack Rich has this to say about Saudi Arabia. And lauds the Washington Press for saying what needs to be said

The Washington Post can now be counted among the straight shooters when it comes to certain egregious regimes. They took the moral high ground on the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. They now have spoken forthrightly on hypocrisy and worse concerning "our friends" the Saudis.

The subject at hand is a phony list of countries "of particular concern for religious freedom" issued in March by our Arabist State Department. Phony because the major offender in the Islamic world, Saudia Arabia, isn't on this list.

Saudia Arabia, an important state only because they were lucky enough to be sitting on oil and gas resources, has zero religious freedom. We, sadly, need them for this reason, and have used their territory to protect their cowardly asses from big bad Saddie when he looked cross-eyed at them after seizing Kuwait.

In this wonderful kittylitter box of a country, it is literally illegal to practice Judaism or Christianity, or any religion except state-sanctioned loony tunes Islam. A Saudi who converts to any of these other religions can be killed by the state; some have been.

Saudi Arabia is also ground zero, in the form of "charities" and wahhabism, for the spread of anti-Semitic and anti-Western filth throughout the world. By no coincidence, Saudi Arabia was also the home of 15 of 19 9.11.01 murderers, not to mention unknown legions of other human pustules serving in al qaeda and other terror groups.

The Post shines the light of reason on at least the religious intolerance aspect of Saudi Arabia in an editorial, in today's edition. Their conclusion is that any list of countries "of particular concern for religious freedom" that does not include Saudi Arabia is a sham, and, in their words, "patently dishonest."

What to do about it is left for another time; it's only a brief editorial. But worry not, fair reader, the Saudi regime always will have its defenders. In the very same edition, in an op-ed (linked from Chicago Sun-Times; same column appeared in the Post), Robert Paleoconservative Novak raves about how we mustn't ruffle the Saudi rulers' feathers with this democracy nonsense:

...the barrage of U.S. criticism directed against the Saudi government threatens destabilization of another Arab country.
And, of course, Saudi "stability" has gotten us so many rich dividends. No one advocates anarchy. But what the Saudis and the rest of us need so desperately is precisely some instability. Instability in the form of regime change and the introduction of freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and a good healthy national enema to get rid of the wahhabistas

Bias at Reuters

Hat tip to Allison Kaplan (see post beneath this one) for steering me to this short piece by Arab-speaking RibbityFrog, who notes:

Well, Reuters press agency (Israel) continues to be the main source for supplying blood and gore pics to satisfy the blood-lust of the Arab world. Have a look at this page from Al-Jazeera's Arabic site. If you don't like what you see, call up the photographic department of Reuters Israel on (++ 972 2) 537 0502 and tell them.

Incidentally, the opening paragraph of the article under that photograph reads:

"Palestinian Minister of External Affairs Nabil Sha'ath held Israel responsible for the decline in the security situation in the Palestinian lands. He said following his meeting with the General Secretary of the Arab League, Amr Musa, that Israel is responsible for the freedom-fighter [fada'iyya] operations that Palestinian factions carried out recently, and that it is responsible through its policy and its hindering of the peace process for the failure of the discussions between the Palestinian factions, the aims of which included the cessation of such attacks."

There you go, an honest and direct acceptance of Palestinian responsibility from one of the most senior and "moderate" Palestinian leaders, the man they dubbed the Palestinian Abba Eban (lehavdil). And I'm supposed to believe

Gems Written Yesterday By Other Israeli Bloggers

Summed up by Allison Kaplan of An Unsealed RoomWho Rides The Bus?

So who rides the bus from a Jerusalem suburb into town at 5:45am? 44 year old Marina Tsahvirashvili does, or used to, on her way to work in the kitchen of Shaarei Tzedek hospital; so did 63 year old Yitzhak Moyal, on his way to the sorting room in Jerusalem's Central Post Office; and 42 year old Ghaleb Tawil, also a hospital worker; 34 year old supermarket worker Ronny Yisraeli; 55 year old Nelly Frob, maintenance worker in the police station in the old city; 52 year old Olga Brenner, a cleaner in a new immigrants radio station; and even 67 year old Shimon Ostinsky, once an economics lecturer in Kiev, now a guard in a car park in Jerusalem.

Just ordinary, hard working people, scrambling for a living, ride the bus from a Jerusalem suburb into town at 05:45am.

Who would blow up such people? 19 year old Bassam Jamal Darwish Takruri, son of a well-to-do Hebron family, would.

I look at the pictures, on this side and on this side. Here - a good looking young warrior, from an affluent background, taking his fate in his hands, sacrificing himself for an exalted cause, to be remembered and revered forever as a hero; here - people who got up early day after day and worked hard and long to feed themselves and their loved ones, to pay the rent, to survive. Not striving to be heroes, not striving to be anything. Just people. Like you and me.

Where is the poetic justice in this? Why are the cold-blooded murders of these people seen by so many as fitting revenge of the weak? Why is this young, good looking, physically strong and economically secure kid perceived as being more desperate than a 67-year-old economics lecturer making his way in the soft early morning light to his dead end job as a guard in a car park?

-- By Imshin

and here's a second one:

Depressing Day

It's been another one of those days: one of those days when, as a simple citizen sitting at my table working, I feel totally powerless. I can imagine a sudden and massive strike, of perfectly accurate missiles flying through the windows of Gaza and knocking Rantisi between the eyes; of the F16 dropping its load on Arafat in his headquarters and finally putting an end to that monster; and, perhaps, of the hope, the whisper of hope, that one day the Palestinian street might rise up and cry, hold, enough.

But none of these things will happen. This war cannot be won in six days. It cannot be won fifty years. Because the fact is that the Palestinians still dream of waking up one morning and finding that the Jews that defile their land will finally have been driven into the sea. The Hamas and the Jihad and the Hizbullah and Al-Qa'ida and Abu Sayyaf and a thousand other organsiations with different names will not be satisfied until they have forced their religion upon the world with the edge of the sword. The Western appeasers who thought that they could be bought did not understand them. Because they believe in nothing themselves, they assumed that everyone can be appeased. Because the flame of religion does not burn within them they thought that flame dead. It will perhaps one day consume them.

Imagine this: the whole world awakes one morning to the cry of the Muezzin calling the faithful to prayer. The poor are lead by their spiritual leaders to the mosque where they give praise unto Allah and his last true prophet, Peace Be Upon Him. The rule of God's law is supreme, those rejecting that faith have been destroyed or subdued. Peace and harmony reigns under the all-mighty empire of God on earth. True justice has prevailed. Vengeace against the wicked has been wrought. Tranquility, harmony as the sun rises over the desert once again.

Enticing, no? A dream perhaps. Unless you happen to reject that prophecy, to disagree with the enslavement of non-believers, to want to dance your own dance and sing your own song and shave and wear purple clothes and educate your daughters and not cut the hands off thieves. Unless you want the freedom of thought and of ideas, the freedom to do as you wish, to eat what you want to eat when you want to eat it. Because if that's what you want, then I'm afraid this vision is not for you: you're one of the condemned, and you will have to die in the bloodbath. That's the tough reality, my friend.

Honest Reporting:The Associated Press highly inflates the number of Arabs who fled Israel in 1948.

AP: Wrong On "Right"


The claim to a Palestinian refugee "right of return" has become a sticking point in the effort to relaunch Mideast peace talks. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon declared that Palestinians must discard this long-controversial demand, but new Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas on Tuesday refused to do so.

In its report on this important exchange, the Associated Press erroneously stated: "Israel has always objected to the right of return for about 4 million Arabs who fled the war that followed Israel's creation in 1948, but never made renouncing the demand a condition for peace talks before."

In fact, no party has ever claimed that 4 million Arabs fled Israel during its War of Independence. The actual number of Arab refugees in 1949 was, according to Israeli sources, 538,000. The UN puts the figure at 720,000, while Palestinians have claimed up to 850,000.

A later reference in the AP article quotes a more accurate figure of 700,000. But with its earlier, inflated reference to 4 million, AP misrepresents the historical significance of the refugee issue and its supposed moral claim - precisely the goal of today's Palestinian negotiators.

As accurately reported by USA Today, the 4 million figure has been used by Palestinians and the UN to approximate the number of refugees and their descendants since 1949. This includes about 1.5 million Palestinians who have been absorbed into Jordanian society, and has only been used to calculate those who may now qualify for some form of UN aid.

Associated Press, supplying news to 15,000 media outlets, bears special responsibility to report accurately. In this case, the erroneous figure appeared in newspapers such as The Toronto Star and Chicago Tribune.

Comments to AP: feedback@ap.org

Comments to The Toronto Star: lettertoed@thestar.ca

Comments to Chicago Tribune: publiceditor@tribune.com

HonestReporting encourages members to monitor their local media for the erroneous AP article, and to request a clear and immediate correction.

-- IS THERE A "RIGHT OF RETURN"? ---
The AP was accurate in one respect - Israel has always objected to the Palestinian claim to a refugee "right of return" to property in today's Israel. On what basis has Israel objected?

1) Voluntary flight: As documented by Professor Efraim Karsh, the vast majority of refugees from the 1948 war were exhorted to do so by their Arab brethren, who urged them to make way for oncoming Arab armies intent on driving the Jews into the sea. Karsh estimates that only 5 to 10 percent were actively expelled by Israelis.

2) No legal basis: As documented by Professor Ruth Lapidoth, the claim to a Palestinian refugee "right of return" lacks basis under a) general international conventions, b) major UN resolutions, and c) relevant agreements between the two parties.

3) Regional precedent: At the time of the creation of the State of Israel, a similar number of Jews were expelled and dispossessed by Arab governments. The Arab states have never made any effort to compensate these Jews, who were absorbed by Israel. Despite having tremendous resources to do so, Arab states have refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees and have often worked to ensure they remain in poverty so as to use them as a political tool against Israel.

4) Effective destruction of Israel: Even diehard Israeli peaceniks such as writer Amos Oz acknowledge that "implementing the 'right of return' means eradicating Israel... It will make the Jewish people a minor ethnic group at the mercy of Muslims, a 'protected minority,' just as fundamentalist Islam would have it"; Oz's colleague A.B. Yehoshua states that the end of the Palestinians' tragedy will come when they cease focusing on returning to their homes in Israel proper and focus instead on returning to a Palestinian homeland.

Israel News: 10 articles

A Palestinian Civil war?

I have to say that the prospect of such a war is great news and should be encouraged. Israeli forces could stay on the periphery and prevent it spilling over to the civilised side. Perhaps some encouragement should be given, like converting Arafat into a Shahid courtesy of an F16.

Once they have sorted themselves out, if the radicals are on the winning side, then Israel could step in and finish them off!

3 Times bias = bias

The recently discovery of Jayson Blair's deception has been cause of much discussion in the media.  Part of the problem with the media (specifically the New York Times) is not the outright deception, but the articles which contain no overt falsehoods but are dishonest when taken as a whole.

To be sure there are many details in each story.  Part of reporting is understanding what's important and what isn't.  Making that choice does tell something about the reporter (and his/her editor.)

I know that news organizations defend themselves against charges of bias by saying that pro-Israel advocates don't want to face the truth. It's more accurate to say that we don't agree with the truths that the media selectively presents.

Take for example Sunday's article about a new Hezbollah created video game.

In an article that seems more a video game review than an investigation of Islamic extremism, Daniel J.Wakin reported "Video Game Mounts Simulated Attacks Against Israeli Targets."
It seems that the most popular video game in parts of Lebanon is one that allows the player to simulate destroying Israeli soldiers or simply popping PM Ariel Sharon in the head for the heck of it.

While not the first politically oriented video game to enter Middle Eastern cyberspace, "Special Force" is a sign of Hezbollah's elaborate propaganda efforts. Its popularity is also an indication of Hezbollah'ssuccess in permeating popular consciousness in Lebanon and in gaining political legitimacy here.

Washington has implicated Hezbollah in terrorist attacks in the 1980's and says it remains a terrorist force with worldwide operations. With the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, the United States hasrenewed pressure on Lebanon and one of Hezbollah's sponsors, Syria, to disarm the group and halt its activities.

Hezbollah says it is focusing on resisting the Israeli occupation of a disputed patch of land on Israel's northern border and on providing moral support to the Palestinian struggle in the West Bank and Gaza.

Its relentless attacks helped drive out Israeli forces from southern Lebanon in 2000, ending a 22-year occupation. That has given Hezbollah a certain stature here and elsewhere in the Arab world.

Hezbollah has capitalized on that stature, entrenching itself in Lebanese society with the patronage of Syria, the power broker here, and with Iranian financing and arms, United States and Israeli officials say.

Take, for example, the above five paragraphs.

A few things are presented as unqualified facts. Hezbollahs' "relentless attacks" forced Israel from southern Lebanon. That success translated into "stature."

What's presented as opinion? That Hezbollah has been "implicated" in terrorism by the United States. Adding a degree of remoteness to Hezbollah's terror Wakin only mentions Hezbollah terrorism from the "1980's." What about the three soldiers who were kidnapped and apparently murdered in October 2000? What about Elchanan Tenenboim who was kidnapped by Hezbollah later? Hezbollah isn't simply "implicated" in terror, its involved in it up to its members' eyeballs.

Another thing: Why is Israel's presence in Lebanon described as an occupation but Syria - which has occupied Lebanon longer and more brutally than Israel - is simply described as a "power broker" not an occupier in Lebanon?

Finally Wakin cites Hezbollah claim that "... it is focusing on resisting the Israeli occupation of a disputed patch of land on Israel's northern border ..." without comment. Until three years ago, no one claimed that Shebaa Farms was part of Lebanon, it was always considered part of Syria. Once Israel withdrew from Lebanon and the Security Council certified that Israel has totally withdrawn from Lebanon, Syria "ceded" Shebaa Farms to Lebanon in order to allow Hezbollah's grievance to persist. The reporter had a responsibility to point out that the "patch of land" was not considered part of Lebanon. Instead he chose to promote Hezbollah's view without challenge.

Mr. Zain said the video game also served as a counterweight to other games on the international market that depicted Arabs as terrorists instead of as freedom fighters with legitimate grievances. He said "Special Force" was less bloody than many other games.

"We want others to know our land is occupied, our people are imprisoned in Israeli jails, our houses are being demolished," he said.

The border area controlled by Hezbollah is quiet for now, he said. "But we do not want the resistance concept to vanish," he said. "We want this idea to live among the Arab people, the Islamic people."

Now we get the scoop on this game from one of its developers. Apparently Mr. Zain is most concerned about PR. He wants Hezbollah to be viewed as "freedom fighters with legitimate grievances." Where's the NY Times telling us uncomfortable truths that Hezbollah is still a terrorist organization?

I remember an episode of "Get Smart" where the bad guys, KAOS, issue an ultimatum via a commercial, complete with a jingle and a disclaimer that KAOS is a Delaware corporation. It was very funny having a criminal organization passing itself of as a commercial enterprise. At least it's funny in fiction. It's not funny in real life, but that's exactly what the NY Times is doing here: portraying a terrorist organization as a video game manufacturer with a message.

By coverning for Hezbollah the New York Times squanders its role as an uncoverer of the world's ills and instead becomes an advertiser for a terrorist group.

The hottest video game for the teenagers of Beirut's southern Shiite neighborhoods is "Special Force," a creation of Hezbollah, the strongly anti-Israel militant organization that is on the United States' terror list.

Of course I have no reason to be offended by the Times's reporting. Hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization; it's a "militant" organization.

What I'm complaining about is not uncommon at the NY Times. Last week, when reporting on the British suicide bombers, the Times used a tone in describing the terrroists that suggested that they were little more than mischievous boys stealing hubcaps off of cars. Little Green Footballs critiqued the Times very well last week.



I realize that this doesn't have much to do with video games, but again it speaks volumes about the bias at the Times when dealing with the Middle East. Overall, James Bennet gave a reasonably good survey of Rabbi Elon's plan in "The Exit That Isn't on Bush's 'Road Map'" Still the following 4 paragraphs really bother me:

Mr. Elon has formed ties to other Christian leaders, including Pat Robertson. In October, he addressed the annual convention of the Christian Coalition. According to The Forward, a weekly focused on American Jewish life, he was cheered by thousands of evangelical Christians waving Israeli flags when he called for the "relocation" of Palestinians to Jordan. Mr. Elon says he envisions a voluntary transfer.

For Palestinians, Mr. Elon's message amounts to incitement. "Imagine a country that said, `These Jews aren't really happy here, and we're going to give them rights in another country,' " said Michael Tarazi, a legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization. "The entire world would rightfully see that as anti-Semitic. And there would be, correctly, public outcry."

In 1989, in his autobiography, "Warrior," Mr. Sharon argued that Jordan was the Palestinian state. He said then that Palestinians in the West Bank should be granted political rights in Jordan, while living under Israeli security control among Israeli Jews.

Mr. Elon adds that Israel should deport "terrorists and their direct supporters" and dismantle refugee camps, settling refugees abroad in Arab nations. Palestinians call this forced transfer, or ethnic cleansing. Mr. Elon calls it "the completion of the exchange of
populations that began in 1948."

Bennet is perfectly willing to use the loaded term "ethnic cleansing" that Tarazi, Arafat's American born mouthpiece, to define Elon's plan. All he offers in Elon's defense is a single fragment talking of the "exchange of populations." There's a strong historical precedent for population exchanges after wars. But more importantly, Elon is referring to the expulsion of nearly the same number of Jews from Arab countries as Arabs who fled "Palestine" in 1948. The main difference being that the Jews who left were not leaving in fear from a theater of war, but were forced from their homes. These Jews of course were absorbed by Israel. Their Arab counterparts were allowed to languish in order to preserve a culture of grievance and hate against Israel. It's a significant point that Elon was making here, and it deserved further exposition. Bennet might also have noted that the situation Tarazi described is what happened to the Jews 55 years ago. How ironic.

One last exapmple the Times's bias (for now.) Bennet's choice of words in "Israel Pulls Back From Peace Plan After 4 Attacks" leaves something to be desired:

After convening his cabinet tonight, Mr. Sharon issued an implicit repudiation of a new international peace plan, which calls for simultaneous concessions by both sides and rapid political progress to achieve peace and a Palestinian state in just three years.

Which side is repudiating the road map? The side that refuses to fight terror or the side that responds. Worse he refers to the Palestinian Arab obligation to fight the terror against Israel as a "concession." It is and has been an obligation of the PA to do so since 1993. Even if you argue that Oslo Accords are now a dead letter, launching attacks - or allowing them - against your opponents makes one the aggressor. Israel is the aggrieved party here and to suggest that its response is somehow hurting the chances for peace is unoforgiveably obtuse.

Cross posted on David's Israel Blog and Israpundit

Best of the Web

James Taranto has this to say about The Road

Are We There Yet?
An Arab terrorist murdered at least two people this afternoon at a mall in Afula, Israel, the Jerusalem Post reports. Over the weekend three suicide bombers murdered nine Israelis, just as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was meeting with Palestinian "prime minister" Mahmoud Abbas, an early stop on the "road map" for peace. The biggest attack took place in the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem, where a suicide murderer stepped onto a bus and blew himself up, killing seven. The Washington Post reports:

"I saw bodies laying there like dolls," said Sgt. Dekel Shai, 19, an Israeli soldier who said he jumped out of the bus after the explosion. "Other people were screaming and covered in blood."

Six of the seven victims on the bus were from the same neighborhood in the community of Pisgat Zeev, where the bus made its first stop near the Green Line separating Israel and the West Bank, according to Israeli television reports. The bomber's belt was filled with tiny metal balls and bullets that pierced the bodies of many of the victims, according to rescue workers.

The "road map" calls for an end to Palestinian Arab terrorism by the end of this month. You've got 12 days left, Abbas--good luck.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports "Palestinian militants have executed a young Palestinian in a public square in the West Bank city of Nablus, witnesses said, in a graphic warning to Palestinians against collaborating with Israeli intelligence":

Seven masked activists hauled Alla Daghlas, 22, to the main square in Nablus on Sunday. His hands tied behind his back, he was forced to kneel, with two gunmen pointing guns at him. Then "they shot him together and went back into the Old City where they came from," said witness Ahmed Abu-Omar, 28.

Perhaps the time isn't yet ripe for a Palestinian state.

Beware of the lull, By Omer Bartov

(If your blood is boiling upon hearing about the roadmap and the beginnings of its practical implamentation you need some cooling off. This is what the following excellent analysis of the global parameters intends to help you achieve).

"Before the war in Iraq began, its opponents warned of catastrophic losses in civilian and military lives, hundreds of burning oil wells, and uprisings in the proverbial "Arab street."

Its supporters promised a swift campaign, rapid establishment of the rule of law, and a domino effect of democracy that would change the realities of the Middle East.

As usual, conditions after the war do not correspond to either set of predictions. The campaign was swift and decisive, losses were relatively low, and most oil wells survived intact. What the Arab street will do is hard to say, but it neither rose up nor welcomed the Americans and the former colonial masters from the United Kingdom. The rule of law still awaits enforcement, and democracy seems about as likely as an Islamic theocracy in Iraq. The domino effect of the latter would hardly feature high on the list of optimistic scenarios.

In Israeli government and military circles there were high expectations from the war. To be sure, the military threat posed to Israel by Iraq has greatly diminished, and there ought to be general relief about the collapse of Saddam's regime. But the main problem faced by Israel is the continuing struggle with the Palestinians and the peculiar strategic-diplomatic situation that it has created. The Iraq war may have an effect on this condition, but possibly a very different one from that envisioned by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon or Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon.

Israel finds itself today receiving almost unprecedented support from the greatest and most dominant superpower in history. This gives it a tremendous lever in realizing its goals. Conversely, Israel is more isolated than it has been in decades from the rest of the world. Moreover, Israeli dependence on the United States is not merely diplomatic and political, but also economic and military. If the United States did not send spare parts for a variety of hi-tech weapons used by the Israeli military, they would cease working within weeks.

It is hard to imagine the Israeli army functioning without its American-built Apache helicopters and F-16s, whether against the Palestinians or in an all-out war. Nor could Israel turn to anyone else for help: they would lack the parts and even if they did have them would hardly be willing to sell to a country that has become the pariah of international politics beyond the Washington DC beltway. Or would the Israeli air force go back to using the French Mirage?

The United States, for its part, took an enormous gamble in attacking Iraq against the consensus of the UN and world opinion. To be sure, military victory seemed to justify the hawks. But the next step calls for very different tactics. The ultimate success of American policy in the Middle East depends more than anything else on resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The same cool, cynical, arrogant technocrats at the Pentagon who advocated, planned, and executed the war in Iraq are now weighing their options in the Middle East. They have little to say about Jews, Zionism, or the approach of the Messiah. They only have America's strategic interests, as they perceive them, in mind.

This could be good for the Jews. If the United States wants to succeed in the Middle East, it must use its unprecedented clout to force the Arab states, the Palestinians, and Israel, to accept a resolution to the conflict. None of the parties is capable of reaching such a resolution on their own, and none will accept its imposition without a massive show of force and determination.

A settlement involving Israel, the Palestinians, and the Syrians, the outlines of which are and have been clear now for years, will indeed be good not only for these parties but also for the policies of the United States in the region and for the possible, though gradual, liberalization and democratization of the Arab world.

IF THE United States chooses not to use its power and lets the Israelis and Palestinians continue with their endless, bloody, and hopeless squabble, the effects on American policies in the region and on the region's states and populations as a whole may indeed be as disastrous as had been predicted before the war. The forces of darkness waiting in the wings (and already gathering in the mosques and city squares) will turn against the supporters of modernization and liberalization in the name of anti-Americanism, anti-imperialism, and anti-Zionism. The United States will not be able or willing to see the constant drain of blood and money that continued occupation will entail, and will leave the region. Presented as a defeated tyrant, it will lose its credibility in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Israel will not only be left with an unresolved crisis, but will experience an even greater erosion of public support in the United States. If now it is the liberal circles in America that have turned increasingly anti-Israeli since the beginning of the second intifada and the attack on the Twin Towers, the failure of the Rumsfeldites will turn the technocrats and conservatives against it as well. Left to fend for itself in an alien and hostile world, Israel will eventually be forced to accept a solution compared to which anything imposed by the United States now will look like the epitome of the Zionist dream.

As a more immediate danger to Israel, one must recall the period between 1967 and 1973. There is no doubt that Israel now seems to enjoy an overwhelming military superiority in the region (not least because of its American-made hi-tech weapons). But it is also strategically highly vulnerable. Unfortunately, most generals (including those turned politicians) are more concerned with tactics. Strategy is several notches higher, and includes politics, economics, national morale, and so forth, in the calculus of war-making capacity.

Israel is vulnerable politically because it is entirely dependent on the goodwill of or unchanging view of national interests by the United States. It is militarily vulnerable because it has no strategic depth. Moreover, the war of 1973 proved that while Blitzkrieg (as in 1967) is Israel's forte, total war is beyond its capacity.

The Iraq war made Israel's eastern front safer. But if it lulls politicians, generals, and the public into a false sense of security, its long-term consequences will be dire. Prime minister Yitzhak Rabin understood in the last two years of his life that, in the long run, Israel would become increasingly vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction whose ultimate dissemination will be impossible to stop. Only a political solution will thwart this danger.

In this sense, Israel must turn the Clausewitzian dictum - according to which the object of war is the attainment of a policy - on its head and declare politics as the continuation (or preferably prevention) of war by other means."

The writer is professor of history at Brown University, RI, and the author, most recently, of Germany's War and the Holocaust: Disputed Histories. (Cornell UP, 2003).

SHOE BOMBER SENTENCING

terrorist v. soldier

Ruling by Judge William Young

U.S. District Court Judge William Young made the following statement in sentencing "shoe bomber" Richard Reid to prison. It is noteworthy, and deserves to be remembered far longer than he predicts. I commend it to you and to anyone you might wish to forward it to.

January 30, 2003 United States vs. Reid. Judge Young: Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General.

On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other. That's 80 years.

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million.

The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment.

The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statues. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you.

We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.

Here in this court , where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice, you are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist.

And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.
In a very real sense Trooper Santigo had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and he said you're no big deal. You're no big deal.

What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today? I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing. And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you. But as I search this entire record it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.

Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.

It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their, their representation of you before other judges. We are about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden, pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.

Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure. Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice,individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.

The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. You know it always will.

Clashes in Lebanon camp

At least five people have been killed in fighting between rival groups in the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain al-Hilweh in southern Lebanon.
Witnesses said gunmen of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement and members of an Islamic group fired automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades at each other, sending residents fleeing for cover.

At least 21 people have been wounded, most of them civilians.

Tension between the two sides has been building for months, after a series of bomb and gun attacks.

The camp is off-limits to the Lebanese authorities.

About 75,000 Palestinian refugees and their families live there.

Battle for control

The fighting broke out when about 200 fundamentalist fighters - using mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and machine-guns - opened fire on the offices of Fatah in the camp.

It is not clear whether there were civilians among those killed.


A Lebanese photographer working for the AFP news agency was among the wounded.
The clashes follow the funerals of two people killed in an ambush in the camp on Saturday, apparently targeting Abdullah Shreidi - leader of the Islamic group, Osbat al-Nour.

He was critically wounded in the ambush.

Osbat al-Nour is said to be an offshoot of a larger Osbat al-Ansar, which is on the United States' list of terrorist organisations because of its alleged links to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda.

Many of its members are said to be wanted by the Lebanese authorities.

note:.... The camp is in Lebanon and yet it is off limits to the Lebanese government?

The road wil be bumpy, but...(President G.W. Bush)

Thoughts on a sad day By Yehuda Poch

"The entire world had such high expectations of Abu Mazen, the new Palestinian prime minister. He would change the situation. He would wrest control of the government from Arafat and begin the dawn of a new era of peace, non-corrupt government, negotiation, friendship, and trust not marred by terrorism or hate. He would end incitement in Palestinian media and in school curricula. He would begin to deal with the Jews -- finally -- as humans.

There were a few lone voices screaming about Abu Mazen´s doctoral thesis, in which he described the Holocaust as a hoax. There were a few who screamed about the fact that he was the financier for the Munich Olympic massacre in 1972. There were even those who pointed out that Arafat still pulled the strings.

The world paid no attention. Rather, yet another attempt was made to ignore reality and dream in living colour about peace finally descending on the Holy Land, as two nations sat down next to each other in peace and democracy.

The world seems to enjoy illusion over fact when dealing with Israel".(Please read the rest).

Wake up, wake up, wake up!

Ostensibly, this article is about the recent "Interfaith Zionist Leadership Summit" in Washington, but in fact, if you read all the way to the end, it is a call to action.

As this site noted some time ago, a meeting was called for Washington, DC, May 17-18, under the heading, "Interfaith Zionist Leadership Summit". Over the last three days I conducted a daily Google search (both news and web) to find info on this conference, its deliberations and decisions. Today, I at long last found one single reference - ONE - in the Washington Times - even NetWorldDaily failed to mention this meeting (I stand to be corrected if there have been other major write-ups). Entitled, "Zionist meeting brands 'road map' as heresy ", the Washington Times article
reads, iter alia:

A Washington conference of Christian and Jewish Zionists yesterday heard attacks on the U.S. "road map" for peace in the Middle East
...
A three-page statement was adopted, to be delivered to President Bush this week, demanding Palestinian concessions before Israel is asked to return to its pre-1967 borders, which would turn over the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority.

Calling the peace proposal "a Satanic road map," Earl Cox, executive producer and host of Front Page Jerusalem, a radio program, asked, "Do any of you believe [Palestinian leader] Yasser Arafat will embrace traditional family values? There will be a mosque on all the holy sites. How can anyone who's a Jew or a Christian support such a proposal?"

Evangelical Christians, estimated to number about 45 million in America, are a source of support for Israel, though to varying degrees.
...
The conference, underwritten by a $100,000 grant from Zionist House, a Boston-based Jewish group, appeared to be closely balanced between Christians and Jews, with a slight Jewish majority. Theological differences were put aside by the speakers, such as Jan Willem van de Hoeven, the Dutch-born founder of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem.
...
About three dozen people protested outside the hotel.

"It involves fundamentalist Christians, who tend to be ethnocentric and racist, siding with Jews who practice the same policies in Israel," said David Kirshbaum, representing SUSTAIN (Stop U.S. Tax-funded Aid to Israel Now). A group of ultra-Orthodox Jews, who oppose Israel's existence on theological grounds, stood beside him.

From the attendance, as described in this article, the conference appears to have been a success, which raises the following questions:

1. Why was the coverage such that only the Washington Times made any reference to it (again, I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong)? Where are the PR people whose job it is to get the word out?

2. Why did the organizers fail to solicit the assistance of the scores of pro-Israel bloggers who (like this site) would have been only to happy to give the event publicity?

3. When will pro-Israel bloggers get together to ensure that this type of conference receive the appropriate publicity before, during and after the event takes place?

I have no influence on the media and the organizations to whom (1) and (2) are directed, and I suspect that most readers are in a similar position. But we can do something about blogger co-operation and coordination, and we MUST do so.

As my contribution, I am sending an announcement about this post to the pro-Israel bloggers I have encountered over the years, and I hope that by doing so I will be sowing the first seed for the co-operation about which I speak. I ask that readers who are either bloggers themselves or have contacts with pro-Israel bloggers, e-mail me in order to lay the foundation for such a network of co-ordinated action.

It is no secret that pro-Israel advocates are doing a poor PR job in getting the word out, while the "Palestinians" are excelling in their campaign. We must wake up! We must wake up!

At Least Twelve Israelis Killed in Renewed Wave of Palestinian Terror


May 19, 2003 Afula Attack Kills at Least Three

At least three people were killed and 18 were wounded when a homicide bomber blew herself this afternoon up at the entrance to the Emakim Mall in Afula. The bomber detonated her explosive belt after a security guard prevented her entry into the shopping center. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing.
Also today, Palestinians launched a series of attacks in the Gaza Strip, including a homicide bomber on a bicycle who attacked an IDF patrol in the area of Kfar Darom injuring three soldiers. Several rockets and mortars were fired at civilian areas and at least one struck in the Negev town of Sderot, punching a hole in a building at a construction site. Two women were treated for shock. Two mortars were fired at the Gush Katif community in southern Gaza.



May 18, 2003 Jerusalem Bombing Kills Seven

Early Sunday morning, a Palestinian terrorist disguised as a religious Jew boarded the No. 6 Egged bus at Jerusalem's French Hill intersection and blew himself up, killing seven passengers and wounding 20 others, four seriously.
The victims were: Shimon Ostinsky, 68; Nellie Perov, 55; Olga Brenner, 52; Marina Tzachivirshvili, 44; Yitzhak Moyal, 64; Roni Yisraeli, 35, all from the Pisgat Ze'ev neighborhood; and Tawil Ralab, 42, from Shuafat.
The homicide bomber was identified as Bassem Jamil Tarkrouri, 19, a Hamas activist from Hebron. Tarkrouri, armed with a belt of explosives, boarded the bus wearing a kippa and tallit in order to give the impression that he had just returned from synagogue. He blew himself up at 6 AM, the explosion of his 10-kilo bomb ripping out the windows of the bus and sending glass fragments and personal belongings flying.
About 20 minutes after the blast on French Hill, as rescue officials were just completing the evacuation of the wounded to four city hospitals, another explosion went off to the north. A second Palestinian homicide bomber had set off another explosion at a checkpoint near the city's northern border after being cornered there by security officials. He failed to kill anyone but himself.



May 17, 2003 Hebron Attack Claims Lives of Two Israelis

Gadi Levy, 31, and his pregnant wife Dina, 37, of Kiryat Arba were killed on Saturday evening after a Hamas homicide bomber blew himself up alongside homes belonging to Jewish community residents of the West Bank city of Hebron. Also late Saturday night, a Palestinian gunman carried out a shooting attack on the community of Sha'arei Tikva close to the Green Line, injuring at least one resident there.




Prime Minister's Office:

"The objective of Palestinian terror, as perpetrated by all of the organizations operating out of the Palestinian Authority areas and from abroad, is to continue to murder civilians, women, children, babies and the elderly simply because they are Jews and Israelis. The goal of the terrorists, their accomplices, those who dispatch them, and those who finance them, is to cause us to despair and lose hope. They will not succeed. The State of Israel will continue to fight terror everywhere, at all times, and in every way possible. The State of Israel will continue to act in order to foil the murderous designs on its citizens until we see that there is someone on the other side who can do this.
Israel is a peace-seeking country. Its hand has always been, and will always be, extended in peace to those who are willing, and mainly to those
who can accept it. However, peace can prevail only after terror has been defeated, only after there will be quiet here. Only then will it be possible to make diplomatic progress." read the statement in full

List of Terrorist Attacks Carried out by Palestinian Terrorists since May 3, 2003 - Date of the Palestinian Leadership's Acceptance of the Road Map

5/19 - Three people killed, 18 wounded in Afula homicide bombing. Also, three IDF soldiers lightly injured when a Palestinian bomber on a bicycle blows himself up in Kfar Darom

5/18 - A homicide bomber disguised as a religious Jew blew himself up aboard a number #6 bus in Jerusalem's French Hill neighborhood, killing 7 and injuring 20, four of them seriously. Twenty minutes later, another bomber was stopped at the a-Ram roadblock and exploded, causing no injuries. Also, an IDF soldier was lightly wounded by Palestinian gunfire in Gush Katif.

5/17 - A terrorist disguised as a Jewish seminary student blew himself up near Gross Square in the heart of Hebron, killing an Israeli man and his pregnant wife. Also, two armed terrorists tried to infiltrate Shaari Tikvah neighborhhod in the West Bank. Before security forces killed the terrorists the two assailants injured an Israeli man.

5/16 - IDF soldier seriously injured when an explosive device goes off next to his tank in Beit Hanoun. Israeli Women injured when Palestinian gunmen open fire on her car in Obed.

5/13 - An Israeli woman injured when Palestinians threw stones at her car in Halhoul. Meanwhile, three Israelis suffered smoke inhalation from 3 Kassam Rockets hitting a factory in Sderot. Also, a Palestinian at an outpost by Gush Katif stabbed an IDF soldier.

5/11 - A Palestinian ambush kills an Israeli man near Ofra.

5/10 - Two Israeli girls injured by shrapnel when Kassam Rockets landed in Neve Dekalim. In Hebron, Palestinian threw stones at Israeli children playing outside their apartment, wounding a three-year old.

5/9 - An Israeli girl is injured by Kassam rockets landing in her town of derot

5/5 - A father and daughter were seriously injured, when Palestinians opened fire at their vehicle near the Shvut Rachel neighborhood, northeast of Ramallah.

List of Terror Attacks in Afula since September 2000.

Afula has been the site of many terror attacks since the start of Palestinian violence. Located near the north-western corner of the West Bank, it is within easy reach from the town of Jenin. Jenin, along with its attached refugee camp, is a stronghold of Palestinian terror organizations - dozens of suicide-bombings have originated from there since September 2000.

June 5, 2002 - A Palestinian terrorist drove a car packed with a large quantity of explosives into an Israeli bus (Egged No. 830) traveling from Tel-Aviv to Tiberias at the Megiddo junction near Afula. 17 people were killed and over 50 were injured. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Islamic holy war) claimed responsibility for the murder.

March 5, 2002 - A Palestinian homicide bomber blew himself up on a bus in the Israeli city of Afula, killing one and wounding at least five. The bus was en route from Nazareth to Tel-Aviv. The bus driver related that the Palestinian murderer, who was clean-shaven and wearing a padded jacket, did not arouse any suspicion until he declined to accept change from a NIS 50 bill. Maharatu Tagana, an 85-year-old father of 12, was killed in the blast.

October 4, 2001 - A terrorist dressed in an IDF uniform opened fire at the central bus station of Afula in north-central Israel, killing three Israelis and wounding 13. Around 2 pm, the gunman got off the northbound 842 bus from Tel Aviv to Kiryat Shmona during a stop in Afula and opened fire on passersby with an M-16 rifle and emptied two ammunition clips, according to Israeli Television. Eyewitnesses reported that he "looked like an Israeli soldier in every way" - until he started shooting. The terrorist was killed by shots from a security guard, part of a special transport protection unit.

November 29, 2001 - Three unarmed civilians were deliberately murdered by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad when a massive explosion tore through a bus traveling on a major highway between the Israeli coastal cities of Hadera and Afula. Among the victims was Inbal Weiss, a 22-year-old student murdered by the Palestinian homicide bomber.

November 27, 2001- Two people were killed and 50 were injured, many of them seriously, when two terrorists opened fire at the Afula central bus station. The terrorists opened fire indiscriminately before being shot and killed by police as they attempted to escape to the city's market. The two terrorists reportedly arrived at the Afula station in a stolen car shortly after 11:30 a.m. They got out of the vehicle and opened fire with Kalashnikov assault rifles on bystanders while running towards the market.

The above information is from the Israeli Foreign Office. To receive Israeline by email, click here.

Cause for Hope?

Israel’s man in Madrid finds reasons for optimism and worry

It’s no secret that many Israelis believe Europe is firmly against them.

But Spain in recent years has shown a decided shift from a staunchly pro-Arab policy to a fair view of the Middle East conflict.

That, at least, is the view of Israeli Ambassador Herzl Inbar, who is wrapping up his four-year stint in Madrid this month...

“When you talk to people on the street, they understand what we are facing,” he said. “They understand that it’s the same problem Spain is facing with terrorism, though to a different degree.”

The House of Saud

The print version of The Atlantic magazine's May issue has a great article on the corruption of the Sauds. Available online here:
The Fall of the House of Saud
Americans have long considered Saudi Arabia the one constant in the Arab Middle East—a source of cheap oil, political stability, and lucrative business relationships. But the government is also deeply corrupt, and gives succor to terrorism. Now, a former CIA operative argues, the Saudi royal family is on the verge of collapse—and much of the global economy could collapse with it
by Robert Baer

(Thanks to Jonathan for the link)

Canadian Jewish population rising, but not as fast as country's Muslims


TORONTO, May 18 (JTA) — Newly released population statistics show that Canada’s Jewish community is growing, mainly due to immigration. According to tabulations from Canada’s 2001 census, the number of people who identify themselves as Jewish in Canada increased by 3.7 percent during the 1990s, to nearly 330,000.

The census also found that the country’s Muslim population has more than doubled in the past decade.

More than half of Canada’s Jews — 190,800 — live in the province of Ontario, the census figures show. Of those, about 175,000 live in the Toronto area.

The census also shows that nearly one-third of Canada’s Jews were born outside Canada and that they are a relatively older population, with a median age of 41.5 years, compared to 37 years for the general Canadian population.

Jewish communal officials acknowledge that the latest statistics reflect high rates of intermarriage, assimilation and non-affiliation among young Jewish adults, problems they have been contending with for years.

But many see the glass as half-full.

“I think it’s a good sign that we are one of the few Jewish communities in the world that is growing from year to year,” said Professor Martin Lockshin, director of the Center for Jewish Studies at Toronto’s York University.

Jewish populations are rising in “Israel, Canada and only a few other places in the world,” according to Lockshin. The largest source of Jewish immigration to Canada has been the former Soviet Union, though that flow has lessened in recent years.

“My understanding is that the reason we have some growth is because there is still more immigration of Jews into Canada than emigration out,” he said.

That also happens in other countries, such as the United States.

“But the drop-out rate in the United States is so high that the number of Jews that self-identify as Jews in the United States is going down precipitously,” Lockshin said. “It’s not going down in the same way in Canada.”

The data shows that the number of Muslims in Canada was 579,600 in 2001, more than double the total a decade earlier.

According to the latest figures, Muslims represent 2 percent of the total population, while Jews represent 1.1 percent.

There is a disagreement among analysts as to whether the substantial growth of the Muslim community explains the emergence of an increasingly strong anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian political lobby in Canada since the mid-1990s.

“I understand the concern that people have, but I’m not certain that it’s justified,” Lockshin said. “Many people have pointed out that a very significant percentage of the Muslim immigrants here are not from Arab countries; they’re from Indonesia and other Muslim countries. It’s not certain that all people that come from Muslim countries are going to be against the interests of the State of Israel.”

The latest numbers show that Canada is still predominantly Roman Catholic and Protestant, with seven out of 10 Canadians indicating an affiliation with one of the two major Christian denominations.

Statistics Canada released the figures in mid-May as part of a package of new data derived from the 2001 census.

Lockshin and others involved in Canadian Jewish studies are awaiting the release of more detailed data from Statistics Canada, which is expected to provide information on the number of people that speak Yiddish and Hebrew, as well as the number of homes in which people profess more than one religion.

“I’m just delighted that the government of Canada asks questions that have to do with religion and ethnicity, which allows us to get a better picture of the Jewish communities of Canada than we have for many other countries of the world,” he said.

SHOPPING CENTRE BLAST


At least four people have died after a female suicide bomber detonated a bomb in a shopping mall in northern Israel, it is reported.

At least 15 people are reported to be wounded, some seriously.

Israeli radio said the explosion happened at the entrance of the mall in Afula.

A guard conducting security checks at the entrance to the Emakim mall prevented the bomber from entering the shopping centre, Israel Radio reported.

The militant Palestinian group Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

It is the third attack in Israel in 48 hours and the fifth in three days.

Earlier today, three Israeli soldiers were injured when a Palestinian on a bike detonated explosives next to a military jeep in the southern Gaza Strip.

And over the weekend a double suicide bomb attack in Jerusalem left nine Israelis dead.

Israel responded on Sunday by closing its borders, preventing Palestinians entering Israel to work.

The attacks prompted the Israeli PM Ariel Sharon to cancel talks in Washington with President George Bush.

Mr Sharon had earlier met the new Palestinian PM Mahmud Abbas for the first time to discuss the US-backed roadmap to peace.

Mr Sharon insisted the peace process would continue.

Attacks by militant Palestinian groups frequently accompany apparent breakthroughs in the peace process.

The Palestinian Solution Illusion

The tsunami of terrorist attacks washing the Middle East in blood over the past week should claim among its victims our belief that all the problems of the region would be solved if only we solved the Palestinian question. The bombings in Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Israel are only a fraction of the violence that will erupt in the coming years, as Islamists race to prove to the world that they are still relevant, that they are still there. We should take notice, we should allocate a great amount of resources to fighting these organizations, and we should disillusion ourselves from the quest for Palestinian statehood as a panacea for the Arab peoples' ills.

This view is starting to get serious currency among those who truly know the Middle East, and have the greater human good--not anti-Zionist fatalism--in mind. Professor Fouad Ajami, a premier scholar from Johns Hopkins’s School of Advanced International Studies, writes in the US News and World Report that, as the Saudi bombing showed, "The terror masters paid no heed to the 'road map" Secretary of State Colin Powell had come to promote as a path to peace between Israelis and Palestinians, or to the promise of Palestinian deliverance held out by the 'Bush administration."

This point it important: opponents of this view might state that the Roadmap comes to "drain the swap," or "limit the sea within these terrorists may swim." There would be some truth to that if the Road Map really would do such a thing. But, as Ajami writes, we should have "No grand illusions. It may be the proper thing for America to take up the matter of Israel and the Palestinians; it may be a debt owed the stalwart British Prime Minister Tony Blair. But we should know the Arab world for what it is today and entertain no grand illusions about the gratitude the road map would deliver in Palestinian and Arab streets. We buy no friendship in Arab lands with pro-Palestinian diplomacy; we ward off no anti-American terrorism. There is no possibility the rancid anti-Americanism of Hosni Mubarak's Egypt would be assuaged with a big push for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement."

In support, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, the symbol of democracy in Egypt, imprisoned until recently by President Mubarak for his dissenting views, writes that the Road Map for the Palestinians does not deal with the problem: what is needed is a Road Map for the region as a whole. Yes, he does recognize the emotive power of the Palestinian question, but he goes farther: "...more is needed than a settlement of the Palestinian question. Democracy and development are two important requisites for a dynamic, peaceful regional equilibrium. Democracy must provide greater inclusiveness of the hitherto disenfranchised, such as women, the young and minority groups. Open and free debates are essential. Doing away with the infamous emergency laws and national state security courts must be parts of the democratic reform process. So should constitutional amendments setting strict term limits for presidents and prime ministers. Competitive presidential elections, not plebiscites, must be enshrined, in clear terms."

We should pay heed to these two experts, and understand that Palestine is only part of the problem, and solving it will only give part of a solution. To blame the violence in the region on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as did NPR this morning, saying that the Moroccan street is seething due to the lack of progress on the Road Map, is to downplay the violence and abuses in the 22 Arab states in the region. To say that the problems plaguing those states stem from Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, or a delay in the implementation of the Road Map, is more than just ignorant: it is irresponsible and racist, laying blame on one ethnicity for a region's ills. We should make it clear that it is unacceptable to blame the problems of tyranny on the Jewish democracy, and unrealistic to think that terrorist will disappear with the foundation of a free Palestinian state.
[Crossposted on Middle East and Morality]

Advice from Ajami in US Today

"There are deeper furies that grip Arab society; we take up a false trail when we fall for the claim that our troubles in that world spring from our policy on Israel and Palestinians. This is the trail our interlocutors in those lands would have us follow. But they are shrewd men, the rulers who hold sway in those Arab lands. It is a cultural norm of the Arab world that strangers are never exposed to family demons. We are strangers in that world, and the Palestine story is all we shall be given, for it is the most convenient of tales".

Jihad is Over! (If Noah Feldman Wants It.)

Martin Kramer Fisks the latest ME "expert."

The newest face thrust upon us by America's insatiable appetite for novelty belongs to one Noah Feldman. He's a 32-year-old assistant professor of law at New York University and author of a new book (his first) entitled After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy. He's also been anointed chief U.S. adviser to Iraq for the writing of its new constitution. This announcement has been greeted by laudatory pieces, in places as varied as the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Israeli daily Ma'ariv. The novelty? It's the combination. Feldman is Jewish (raised in an Orthodox home); summa cum laude at Harvard (Near Eastern studies); conversant in Arabic; a Rhodes scholar with an Oxford D.Phil. in Islamic studies; and a law graduate from Yale. "The East is a career," wrote Disraeli. What he really meant was that the East is a great place to launch a career. It's now done that for young Professor Feldman, who will never again know obscurity.

The understanding of the Middle East can always use a new face. After all, America's most credible interpreter of the Middle East and Islam is about to turn 87 (happy birthday to Bernard Lewis, May 31!), so you know there is a generation gap. But you expect new ideas from new faces. The problem with Noah Feldman is that his idea isn't new. In fact, it's the same idea first advanced about a decade ago by John L. Esposito, a professor at Georgetown University and America's foremost apologist for Islamism. If you purchase Feldman's After Jihad, you should shelve it between Esposito's 1992 book, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?, and his co-authored 1996 book, Islam and Democracy. They're all essentially the same book. (You can get the gist of Feldman's book from a short piece in the Boston Review, a segment on the publisher's website, a draft of a chapter left on the web, and a long radio interview with the author, broadcast last month.)

The Esposito/Feldman idea goes like this: Islamists are really no worry at all. In fact, they are actually the best hope for democracy in the Middle East. Leading Islamist thinkers want democracy, and if Islamist parties were allowed to take power—which they certainly would do in free elections—it would be an improvement over the situation today. Even if Islamists declared "Islamic" states on assuming power, these regimes would probably be more or less democratic, provided you don't insist on a narrow, culture-bound definition of democracy. The United States is making a big mistake by allying itself with autocratic rulers in the region, and it's betraying its values too. It should encourage inevitable change in the Islamists' favor, which is really in the U.S. interest.

To make this argument stick, you need to claim that "jihad is over." Why? While it's still on, too many so-called "moderates" apologize for it or even cheer it on. This is what happened in the decade between the Gulf war and 9/11. Esposito and his crowd were telling us that Islamism was evolving in new, peaceful, and democratic directions. In his 1992 book, Esposito assured us that the Islamist violence of the 1980s would recede, and that "the nineties will prove to be a decade of new alliances and alignments in which the Islamic movements will challenge rather than threaten their societies and the West."

In fact, exactly the opposite happened. Islamist movements kept spinning off terrorism that grew ever more deadly, all of it justified as jihad, destroying the flagship American project—the "peace process" between Israelis and Palestinians—and finally killing 3,000 innocents in New York. This wave of terrorism was made possible in part by the refusal of the so-called Islamist "moderates" to condemn violent jihad in all its forms. Some even justified it in roundabout ways. They were effectively accomplices to the violence, and American apologists of the Esposito school contributed to the general complacency that made 9/11 an easy job.


Now Noah Feldman comes along to reassure us that the jihad has really abated this time. 9/11 and subsequent attacks are "the last, desperate gasp of a tendency to violence that has lost most of its popular support." Al-Qa'ida is "politically irrelevant." The "alarmist argument is behind the curve." The mainstream Islamists don't want jihad, they want democracy: "The Islamists' call for democratic change in the Muslim world marks a fundamental shift in their strategy." Feldman: [more]

Our friends the Palestinians

The title is mine. Here, some revealing tidbits via Martin Kimel. Be sure to view the links within Martin's article

Here's How Palestinians React to Suicide Bombers Who Slaughter Pregnant Women and Others:

Today, as Israelis mourned their dead, the police did not publicly link the two attacks. But in Hebron, a single mourning tent was set up for the two bombers, with coffee and candy handed out to the friends and relatives who gathered.


And let's hear it for Palestinian "due process":


Also, Palestinian militiamen shot to death a fellow Palestinian suspected of working as an informer for Israel. He was killed in a central square in the West Bank city of Nablus, witnesses said.


Don't hold your breath waiting for denunciations of this murder by pro-Palestinian groups or the international community.
* * *


Think Murdering the Wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer is Hard to Top for Cruelty? Read this horrific account of Abu Abbas' earlier slaughter of a Jewish family. And this is the man the Palestinian Authority wants to go free.

* * *
Why so much anonymity? Look at this paragraph from John Ward Anderson's story on the latest Palestinian suicide bombing:

"Everything depends on Bush," said a senior Western diplomat before Sharon canceled his visit to Washington. He said Bush needed to appoint an envoy with senior stature to oversee the plan, commit to U.S. monitoring of it "on the ground," and impress upon Sharon that it is time to implement the road map, not renegotiate it.

Okay, I understand that the "senior Western diplomat" didn't want himself identified, but couldn't Ward have described him a little more narrowly? Is he a European diplomat? An American? Knowing the answer would inform how one reads the paragraph.

Andrew Sullivan on the most recent suicide bombings

The Palestinians respond

The disgusting murders in Israel in response to the slim chance of serious negotiation over the roadmap has drawn the predictable and defensible response from the Sharon government. Abbas has only minimal control over the terrorists who undermine him; Arafat is clearly in no mood to restrain the carnage; and the roadmap is dead without serious engagement from the Palestinians. It's yet another suicide mission from the Palestinian Arabs. With the removal of Saddam and the emergence of Abbas, there was a new chance for some sort of progress. Once again, it has been thrown away. Sharon is hardly a risk-taker for peace; but who, under these circumstances, could be?

Muslims and the Media


Some pereceptions about Muslims and the press fromDisaffectedMuslim

[...]Now we come to the crux of the problem; while complaining about how Muslims and Arabs are portrayed in Western media, Arab media is infamous for its Nazi levels of invective and hatred against Jews, and of course one can hardly expect a good image of Westerners either! Suppose Jews and Israelis complained about how they were portrayed by Muslims; do you think they would get a sympathetic response? How about if Americans complained about the barrage of anti-Western rhetoric, the portrayal of Western women as whores, the depiction of Americans as "controlled by the Jews," and on and on? One constantly repeated claim is that American media is controlled by the Jews (or "Zionists") and that is why Muslims and Muslim causes can't get good press. Well, has it ever occurred to them that they are indulging in the same kind of racism and bigotry they accuse the media of? Or is it that hatred of Jews is not racism? (I don't like using the term "anti-semitism," because Arabs and others will frequently say that, since they are Semites, they can't be anti-Semitic, or that hatred of Arabs is "anti-semitism." I want to make it clear that I am referring to hatred of Jews.)


Frankly, one reason I'm often not very sympathetic to Muslim complaints of media bias is the fact that the Arab media in particular, and that of many other Muslim nations as well, is so ravingly insane, filled with hatred of Jews and Westerners (forget about a sympathetic documentary depicting an Israeli family, or an American one!). It is, it might be said, bad PR, and the way Muslims often react to the revelation of this insanity doesn't help: either flat denial or the same old tired claims that 1) it's for purely "understandable" reasons, 2) you just don't understand the context, how Muslims have been humiliated, and 3), the most ridiculous, showing displeasure, not that there is so much hatred in Arab media, but that Westerners have been informed about it!


Why does it go only one way--Americans and Westerners must "understand" Muslims and Islam, depicting them in a good light, but Muslims can say whatever crap they want about Westerners and Jews on their media (admittedly usually state-run, but even independent sources are generally just more of the same)? Why must Americans realize how their actions upset Muslims and humiliate them, while Muslims do not have to realize how their actions and attitudes upset Americans? Why can't Jews/Israelis be portrayed as human beings, the way Muslims say they want themselves to be portrayed, instead of as the font of all evil?


Another part of the crux of the problem is that, frankly, many Muslims cause more than their share of trouble! Terrorist acts, seemingly constant warfare against both Muslims and non-Muslims, calls for jihad and the destruction of Israel and the West, anti-American demonstrations, synagogue torchings, and so on, do not do much for the image of Muslims and Islam! Pacifist Buddhists hardly ever get into the news in this fashion! It seems as if many Muslims would like to see the media ignore all of this, which isn't going to happen anytime soon. More troublingly, the typical Muslim reaction to these acts is not to apologize for how Islam is being misused, or how the terrorists are bad Muslims, or some kind of condemnation, but instead whining about how Muslims are "unfairly treated" and that Islam is given a "bad image" by the media. (For example, Muslim organizations in America didn't really condemn the actions of 9/11 or other terrorist acts in a forceful manner, or sometimes at all, instead focusing on profiling of Arabs/Muslims at airports and complaining about the shutdown of Muslim charities funneling money to terrorist organizations.) This attitude alone does a lot to create distrust and dislike among non-Muslims towards Muslims, it must be said, leading many to conclude that Muslims in America, by failing to say anything about terrorist acts, are implicitly condoning them, or at least refusing to condemn them[more]

Cabinet Convenes; Arafat to Stay

The cabinet met last night in emergency session following Sunday's suicide bombing, discussed expelling Yasser Arafat, decided to boycott foreign diplomats who meet Arafat, but made no other operative decisions.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who postponed his visit to Washington and a meeting with President George W. Bush to hold security consultations and convene the cabinet meeting after Sunday's bombing, issued a statement after the meeting saying Israel will continue fighting terror "at any time and in any way possible."

"The State of Israel will continue to operate in order to prevent any intention to murder its citizens until there is proof that there is someone on the other side who is capable of doing so."

Sharon's comment reflected Israeli disappointment with the results of Sharon's meeting Saturday night with new Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.

Israeli officials said that although the talks were held in a good atmosphere, and it was agreed to hold another meeting after Sharon returns from the US, the Palestinians rejected his offer to take overall security responsibility for one specific area northern Gaza - which would result in an IDF withdrawal from this area unless terror attacks once again emanated from there.

Instead, according to the officials, the Palestinians demanded that Israel announce that it is accepting the road map.

Sharon, who briefed the cabinet on his talks with Abbas, said he drew two conclusions from the meeting:

-Israel will not say that it has already despaired of this new, fledgling process
-Israel will continue on its own to fight against the terror organizations and infrastructure.

Sharon said that while the Palestinians pushed him to accept the road map, he said he was committed to Bush's two-state vision. He said that Israel's reservations to the road map need not keep the Palestinians from doing what is a prerequisite to any road map namely, beginning the fight against terrorism.

The only decision to come out of the cabinet meeting was the directive to all government officials that they are not to meet with any foreign official who, during their visit to the region, meet Arafat.

This policy will go into effect for all diplomats planning their visits now, but will not include the foreign ministers of France, Bulgaria, Hungary and New Zealand who have already planned visits to the region, and will be able to meet foreign Minister Silvan Shalom even if they also meet Arafat.

For the last few weeks Shalom has met diplomatic officials who have met Arafat, while Sharon has decided on a case-by-case basis. A blanket decision now to boycott these visits reflects the government's sense that these visits are strengthening Arafat, at Abbas' expense.[more]

News from Israel: ten articles

Palestinians freeze activities in Syria

Clearly a tactical move that means nothing whasoever

Two Palestinian hard-line groups have cancelled rallies planned in Damascus as part of Syrian measures to freeze their activities at the request of the United States.

Palestinian sources said the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, decided to cancel a rally in the Yarmouk refugee camp to commemorate its martyrs.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command headed by Ahmed Jibril, cancelled a similar rally to mark the assassination of Jibril's son, Jihad, who was killed last year in Beirut.

The moves came as part of measures by the Damascus-based Palestinian factions following the recent visit of U.S. State Secretary Colin Powell to Syria when he requested the Syrian authorities cease support of these hard-line groups which oppose peace with Israel.

The sources told United Press International Palestinian officials in Damascus have stopped giving news interviews and are no more coming to their offices which returned to be normal apartments used for internal activities of every group after they were open to visitors, journalists and diplomats.

They said such a voluntary move by the Palestinian groups was meant to ease the pressure on Syria.

Powell has requested Syrian President Bashar Assad to close the offices of groups such Hamas and Islamic Jihad to prevent them from obstructing efforts to move forward with the road map for peace in the Middle East.

The Bush Road Map

The Middle East peace plan is a no-lose gamble for Bush


WASHINGTON — President Bush's decision to advance the Middle East "road map" in the year before his reelection campaign represents a break with a cardinal rule of presidential politics. Presidents are supposed to touch the Israeli-Arab conflict only during the first two years of their first term. After that, hands off.

That is why President Nixon put forth the Rogers plan in 1969, President Carter embraced the Sadat initiative in 1977, President Reagan announced his plan in 1982 and President Clinton held the Oslo peace accord signing in 1993. As one former White House hand told me: "Push Israel toward peace before an election? A president would have to be nuts."

Bush is certainly not nuts and, more to the point, neither is Karl Rove, the presidential advisor who makes sure that political consequences are considered in nearly every policy decision. Certainly, Rove was consulted before Bush decided to push the road map. And it is safe to assume that he told the president that pursuing peace in the Middle East is not necessarily a political loser. If he thought otherwise, it is unlikely that Bush would have announced his support for the road map, no matter how persuasive British Prime Minister Tony Blair was.

The road map represents the best opportunity for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement in the 31 months since the intifada began, and Bush, following his Iraq war victory and with no fears of political reprisal at home, is uniquely positioned to push for a breakthrough.

Until now, Bush studiously avoided Mideast diplomacy. That he is reversing course suggests he and Rove believe Bush's high standing in the polls will survive a test of the waters. On the other hand, the president still has plenty of time to pull back, particularly if Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon refuses to budge. The Israeli leader's refusal to accept the road map during Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's recent visit, coupled with his statement that a settlements freeze is not "on the horizon," are not good signs.

Many in Washington assume Bush will retreat. Some cite his failure to even mention the road map in his recent speech on a Middle East free-trade zone as evidence he has. This month, Jack Abramoff, a pro-Israel Republican close to House leaders, said, "I don't think [Bush] gets anything politically if he has a peace deal." Abramoff is surely wrong. The president who achieves a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will certainly reap political benefits, especially among Jews[more]

The Indonesian example

It is high time Israel took a leaf out of the book of a Muslim nation. Regarding Aceh province in Indonesia, the government there has told the rebels of the "free Aceh" movement, lay down your arms, give up your aspirations for a state or else face an all out attack.

This could and should be the response now to the latest spate of atrocities. That should be the Israeli "road map". Arafat himself should be the first recipient of a "gift of martyrdom" courtesy of an F16! They need an ultimatum - The terror stops completely - not a single stone or bullet after 12 midnight or face total war.

Peres: Don't expect Abu Mazen to fight terror, Sharon should give him concessions

(Via LGF) From IMRA: Labor MK Shimon Peres made some extremely questionable remarks to Israel Radio:

Labor MK Shimon Peres told Israel Radio in a live interview that PA Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) cannot be expected to fight Palestinian terrorists. Instead, Peres suggested, Israel should offer concessions to Abu Mazen so that Abu Mazen can show the terrorists that more can be gained via negotiations than terror.

Peres criticized Sharon, saying that Abu Mazen would have been strengthened if Sharon had given him concessions during the meeting last night.

With regards to the "problem" of terror, Peres said that the problem was not terror but suicide bombers.

Personally, I find these comments beyond extremely perplexing (if not extremely stupid). Afterall, if Sharon were to have made concessions, would that not be concedeing to terror? Second, if suicide bombers aren't "terror", then what is?

(Cross posted at JawsBlog and IsraPundit

Glick on ignorence

I like Caroline Glick as a reporter and a commentator. Here she starts a piece on what's behind the crass ignorence of Israel by those whose job is know it:

"I have been in Israel for two years and have never spoken to someone with views like yours." So exclaimed a senior Western diplomat at the end of a pleasant lunch meeting with me on Wednesday afternoon.

Surprised, I responded, "That's strange. If the results of the last election and recent polling data are any indication of national sentiment, it would seem that many of my views are shared by the majority of Israelis."

Now the Islamic spokesmen begin to distinguish between good killing and bad.

But the Saudis were supposed to be off limits to the terrorists

Ken Beste esplains what the mullahs have to say about terror inside The Kingdom

You see, Saudi Arabia was supposed to be off limits to this kind of thing. It would provide money, and only make token attempts to control the extremists, and in turn the extremists were supposed to make their attacks elsewhere. They were supposed to kill Jews and Americans; that was fine. But they weren't supposed to play in Saudi Arabia.

That was what the money was for. Rich Saudis would give lots of donations to "charities" who would funnel the money to terrorist groups, and the Saudi government would look the other way and pretend it wasn't happening. And in exchange for all this, the idea was that the terrorists would leave Saudi Arabia alone.

They didn't, however. Problem is, in all the kinds of places that the terrorists would really like to have made their attacks, the security has gotten too good. Lots of cells broken up, lots of attempts which were foiled. On the other hand, in Saudi Arabia, what with the government looking the other direction, it meant they could actually make their plans and carry them out, and any attack is a good attack, and better than a plan which is foiled. The idea that you can actually make a bargain with extremists and buy them off is, shall we say, overly optimistic.

So in the wake of last week's bombings in Riyadh, we're now seeing pious declarations of outrage, and condemnation of terrorism. Prince Fahd, for example, declares a zero-tolerance policy:

Saudi Arabia "will never allow any faction of deviated terrorists to harm the country and undermine the safety of its citizens and residents," King Fahd said in his first public comments on the Riyadh attacks that killed 34 people, including eight Americans, Monday.

And sermons at mosques in Saudi Arabia today condemned terrorism as an evil force unless, of course, if it was directed at Jews or Americans, who are themselves all terrorists and deserve to die:

A similar message was delivered by Mazin Rajin, a cleric who gave the noon sermon at the Abu Bakr Mosque in east Riyadh. He told more than 400 worshipers that the crisis was testing the country’s beliefs and that the “nation should revise its policies and accept advice from other people.” He described terrorists as “mentally twisted and unstable” people whose deeds are against human nature.

Citing announcements made earlier this week by a number of Islamic cleric organizations, Rajin recalled passages from the Koran, the Muslim holy book, to make the case that terrorists violate Muslim law and are doomed to hell. “When you kill a person intentionally, hell is the penalty,” Rajin declared, even if that person is not a Muslim. “Heaven is forbidden for a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim intentionally.”

Terrorism is an awful thing. Nasty, evil, obviously it is terrible.

But Rajin also said the reason for the attacks rested in the “injustice our Muslim brothers are facing around the world, in Chechnya, Palestine and Iraq.” He equated the “individual and group terrorism” practiced by the attackers with the “state terrorism” of Israel, which he said “steals, rapes, kills and burns with no control at all.”

Of course, we have to understand the root cause of terrorism, right? (And the terrorists are evil, but the Jews are worse, right?)

No. And let me say that no matter how holy and respected Rajin might be, he's totally full of shit. Because he, like everyone who's tried to make the "root causes" argument about terrorist attacks since 9/11, fails to explain why it is that Arabs are doing this but no one else is. There's a hell of a lot of suffering and "injustice" in the world, but no one besides Muslim Arabs (and non-Arab Muslims they've recruited) seem to be responding in this way.

Why, for instance, aren't Saudi Arabia's own Christian minority engaged in this kind of thing? They've been subject to at least as much repression as the Chechens.

The sheer hypocrisy of this sudden public outrage and condemnation is beyond gall. The idea that they suddenly have realized that terrorism is awful, or indeed that they are trying to pretend that they've always been opposed to it, is preposterous. It isn't that they condemn terrorism, it's that they are pissed off that they've suddenly become targets of it. Terrorism is just fine, as long as someone else is the target.

Update 20030518: I am informed that there is no native Christian minority in Saudi Arabia, and that the only Christians are foreigners

The Eternal Nazi: Watching Roman Polanski's The Pianist in Germany

Hat tip to Instapuandit for this posting. Very sad to discover, or have to remember, that the Germans seemingly have learned little. Or, to paraphrase with a twist: those who recall their past will relive it over and over. But read the piece yourself.

The Middle East 'Road map.'

A handy chart depicting what each side is expected to do in steps toward a peacful resolution of the conflict in ME and the establishment of a Palestinian state. You may of course not agree with this plan, but here it is for consideration.

Reasserting Israeli Sovereignty

By way of background, France seems to have decided that they cannot confront their Moslem citizens, but must accommodate them in every direction they decide to push France. They amount to 12% of France and they are willing to riot and suffer casualties without limit, and to inflict similar casualties, of course. If 12% of the population riot, the police are helpless to control it. The army would have to be called in and civil war would result. That is not acceptable to French leadership.

The Arabs constitute about 17% of Israel and have been very much radicalized since the release of 1,150 prisoners in 1985 in exchange for three Israeli POWs and by the endless Israeli capitulations in the last ten years. The Israeli government has now decided to arrest and prosecute Arab leaders of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement for fomenting and abetting terrorism. I hope the government will have the fortitude to persevere. The alternative is for Israel to become the Jewish Autonomy in Palestine, for the time being.

To get straight to the point, the State of Israel is no longer really sovereign in its territory. The PLO is. The definition of sovereignty involves matters like control of territory and population, occasionally stated quite elegantly. What it all comes down to is the exclusive right to resort to force or to define when others are permitted to resort to force, such as cases of self-defense. If the sovereign does not have that exclusive right, then the sovereign is no sovereign.

Unauthorized violence is an insult to the sovereign. It diminishes the authority of the sovereign and respect for the sovereign. If the "king" cannot prevent crimes, the people might begin to think why they have need of a king. That is why criminal cases are called “King v. Doe” or “State v. Doe” or, in some American states, “People v. Doe,” based on the notion that, ultimately, the people are sovereign. Violence against the state itself is particularly an insult to sovereignty and cannot be tolerated by the sovereign.

Even more damaging to the sovereign is mass violence against the state. When Israel declines to enforce the law against its Arab citizens for fear that they will riot, it allows its sovereignty to be diminished. If the state permits illegal construction because the Arabs would riot if the structures were demolished, then it gives the rioters the power to rewrite the planning and zoning law. When the Minister of Internal Security declines to search Arab villages for illegal weapons because of fear that the Arabs will riot, then he has relinquished sovereignty over those villages. When the Supreme Court affirms the right of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount, but gives the police power to prevent it because the Moslems would riot, then it gives criminal mobs the power to nullify both the law and the authority of the sovereign.

If the violence against the state is organized and directed by an organization, it is tantamount to insurrection, a claim of the right to replace the sovereign and take over the state. A state that permits organized violence against it by an organized structure, or is unable to prevent it, has relinquished a degree of sovereignty to that organization.

It is even more damaging to the sovereign when the rioting is organized by an organization like the PLO, which claims the right to supplant the State of Israel and rule over the territory in its stead. If Israel shrinks from enforcement of the law, it relinquishes sovereignty in that area to the PLO. When the UN, the State Department or the EU demand that Israel not defend itself against attack by the Palestinian Authority, they are demanding that Israel relinquish sovereignty to the Palestinian Authority. Nothing less.

The surrender of sovereignty to the PA is already very extensive. Palestinian “police” operate within Israel and within Jerusalem with the knowledge and acquiescence of successive Israeli governments. Parts of Jerusalem are de facto under PLO rule. People in several neighborhoods know that they have to obey the PA’s security personnel, not Israel’s. The constituent organizations of the Palestinian Authority recruit in Arab towns in Israel and have representatives elected to the Israeli Knesset. If the PLO can take over the Temple Mount and systematically destroy all evidence of Jewish presence there, in blatant disregard of the law, and the Israeli government is unable to respond effectually, then the PLO can take anything it wants whenever it is ready. Where will the Israeli government draw the line? At Sheinkin Street?

The measure taken by the government may very well be too little, too late. On the other hand, it may lead the government to the kind of commitment necessary to restore the country's sovereignty, dignity and self-respect.

E-Mail from Honest Reporting

Dear HonestReporting Member,


The image of Mohammed al-Dura — the Palestinian boy crouched under his father's protective arms, victimized by hostile gunfire in September 2000 — has become a central icon of the latest Intifada and the most recognizable global symbol of “Israeli cruelty.”

Al-Dura's dramatic death filled televisions, magazines, newspapers and computer screens worldwide, and though the media were initially hesitant to declare IDF responsibility for the incident, eventually that understanding was promoted almost universally. Journalist and commentator Tom Gross notes that the al-Dura scene was captured only by France 2 television, who, "so impressed with their film, took the unusual step of making video copies of their footage, editing out bits they didn't like, and distributing the film for free to rival commercial networks."

The backlash was so great that the IDF conducted an uncharacteristically hasty inquiry and just three days later announced that indeed “it could very well be” that the bullets that struck al-Dura originated from an IDF soldier.

It now seems likely that the media indictment and IDF semi-confession were mistaken; some evidence even exists that the entire Mohammed al-Dura death scene was staged for anti-Israeli effect.

An important article by James Fallows, published in this month’s The Atlantic, investigates the incident in-depth and concludes that "it now appears that the boy cannot have died in the way reported by most of the world's media and fervently believed throughout the Islamic world."

For the convenience of our members, we reprint the article here in its entirety.

The Atlantic article can be found at : Copyright © 2003 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The Atlantic Monthly; June 2003; Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?; Volume 291, No. 5; 49-56

Crossing Jordan

The Exit That Isn't on Bush's 'Road Map'

The New York Times (free reg. req'd.) posts this alternative Road to peace in Middle East. If you were a Jordanian, how would you feel about this? If pro-Israeli, how do you feel about this?

The Bush administration argues that the defeat of Saddam Hussein has provided a chance to end the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and that only the eventual creation of a Palestinian state can accomplish that.

Benyamin Elon, a minister in the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon, agrees. But, reviving a vision long cherished by Israel's religious and secular hawks, he argues that the new Palestinian state must be Jordan.

This is the "window of opportunity," he says, for Israel to annex at last the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If the Bush administration has the courage to abandon "clichés" about land for peace, he argues, it can now achieve a "long-term, spiritual earthquake" in the Middle East.

Mr. Elon's vision has new punch because of the strengthening alliance between those Jews who favor a Greater Israel and conservative Christians in the United States who are moved by the same ancient dream, based on what evangelicals call the "Abrahamic covenant."

And Israeli politicians, including Prime Minister Sharon, are well aware of that alliance as they consider their response to President Bush's new drive for peace. In fact, the religious nationalism that Mr. Elon embraces so tightly appears to be gaining adherents faster in the United States than in Israel.

Mr. Elon's view evokes basic questions of the meaning of the Jewish state. It makes explicit what some believers of many creeds — though not the Bush administration — say is the real subtext of the war on terrorism: that it is a battle between Judeo-Christian and Islamic values, beliefs and territorial ambitions.

Referring to Palestinians, Mr. Elon said, "We can force them to understand it — and they will understand it — that we are the children of Israel that came back to the land of Israel."

Prime Minister Sharon rebuked Mr. Elon for pushing his plan in Washington while the Israeli government was officially reviewing the approach Mr. Bush backs. Yet Mr. Sharon, who is to meet with President Bush this week, invited along a minister allied with Mr. Elon, as well as other members of his government, when he met with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell last Sunday.

Mr. Sharon's goal, one of his advisers said, was to demonstrate to Mr. Powell how much resistance he will face if he follows the "road map" favored in Washington, a plan that envisions a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza in just three years. Mr. Sharon has serious objections to that plan and wants to change it.

Mr. Bush, on the other hand, has endorsed the road map. But if the president demands that Israel immediately begin to carry it out, as Palestinians have asked, he is almost certain to face objections from a key constituency, Christian conservatives.

"You're much more likely to hear a person from the Christian right say that all of Israel belongs to the Jews than many Israeli politicians, including on the Israeli right," said Gershom Gorenberg, author of "The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount." "Congress is full of people who reflect this kind of thinking."

Jordan rejects Mr. Elon's plan, and the Bush administration appears chilly to it.

As Israel's minister of tourism, Mr. Elon, an eloquent, cheerful exponent of his cause, went to the United States this month to drum up visitors and to promote his ideas among congressmen and devout Christians — two groups that, not coincidentally, supply some of the hardiest tourists here.

On his trip, Mr. Elon met with Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, who has referred to the West Bank by the Biblical names of Judea and Samaria.[more]

nuttiest statement of the year

Palestine urges restraint from Israel

The PA is committed to ending terrorism? What have they thus far done?

PALESTINIAN information minister Nabil Amr condemned the double suicide attacks which killed seven people plus the two bombers in Jerusalem today and called on Israel to exercise restraint in its response.

"We condemn these attacks, since it is the Palestinian position to condemn all attacks against civilians," he said in a statement issued here.
"We urge the Israeli government to show restraint in its response. The Palestinian government and leadership are committed to taking measures to put an end to such attacks and create a positive climate for the resumption of talks," he added.

A suicide bomber blew himself up on a bus in annexed east Jerusalem, killing seven people and himself, while a much higher death toll was narrowly averted when a second bomber blew himself up prematurely in a nearby village.

Israel News: 10 articles

 Right of Return - the “Palestinian” View

If there is one issue about which virtually all Israelis speak with one voice, it is the “Right of Return”. There is also agreement about the principal reason for objecting to the “Right of Return”, namely, that the ensuing influx of “Palestinian refugees” will spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

As in all issues, it is important to know what the other side thinks, and in the case of the “Right of Return”, there is no better time to learn about the other side than around the time of the Nakba tantrum. Indeed, the official “Palestinian” outlet, Palestine Media Center (PMC) posted today [17 May 2003] two articles on the topic, in addition to the permanent FAQ. ( Concerning the PMC and its official status, see this About Us statement.)

The object of this article is to highlight some of the “official” arguments presented by the “Palestinians” in these three sources, underscoring why the Roadmap can never lead to peace, as long as the official “Palestinian” position is congruent with these arguments.

The first quotations come from an article summarizing comments made by Aratrash. It should be emphasized that the article paraphrases for an English-speaking audience, and it is well known that such paraphrasing often differs from the actual text delivered in Arabic. The article is entitled, ”Arafat Stresses ‘Right of Return’, Palestinian Strategic Peace Option” and reads in part as follows [bold font added]:

In commemoration of the 55th anniversary of Nakba, the Palestinian memorial marked on May 15, President Yasser Arafat on Thursday stated that Palestine “is our country, to which every Palestinian refugee has the right to return.”
...
Israel must withdraw from all the land it occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War and Palestinian refugees must be allowed to return to their homes, he insisted.

In the first paragraph quoted, Aratrash talks about “Palestine” and the right of refugees to return to it. What "Palestine" is he talking about? In the second paragraph Aratrash talks about the right to “return to their homes”, which in most cases are within Israel. Putting the two together, it is clear that his “Palestine” is the entire Palestine according to the borders of the British Mandate, i.e., no Israel. All the subsequent talk about the PLO accepting two states is obviated by this statement, which reveals his real intentions.

It may be argued that Aratrash has been sidelined, but that is clearly not the case. Even had he been sidelined, Abu Mazen adheres to the Aratrash position on the “Right of Return”, which no Israeli, let alone an Israeli leader, would ever accept.

A second article posted today on the PMC site is entitled ”Are Palestinians Too Radical for Wanting to Return Home?” The article repeats the standard “Palestinian” line but adds this element to the argument about the Jewish refugees who escaped from Arab lands:

Others raise the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab lands, as if it is a bartering card. ‘We'll give up our claims if you give up yours.’ But Jews who were forced out should be compensated or repatriated. This hardly negates Israel's responsibility in ethnically cleansing Palestinians.

The point the author evades and avoids is the Israeli argument that, in fact, a two-way population transfer took place, just like the one between India and Pakistan circa 1947.

The most comprehensive presentation of the “Palestinian” position is given in the FAQ document, which should be read in its entirety. A few excerpts are particularly instructive:

1. Who are the Palestinian refugees?

The Palestinian refugees are approximately 726,000 Christians and Muslims (amounting to 75% of the Arab population of Palestine) who resided in what is now Israel and who fled or were expelled prior to, during and after the 1948 War to create a state for Jews in Palestine. They and their descendents [sic] are often referred to as the “1948 refugees.”

In 1967, an additional 200,000 Palestinians fled their homes in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip when Israel launched a war against Jordan and Egypt, capturing and occupying the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip (the Occupied Palestinian Territories). They and their descendents [sic] are often referred to as the “1967 displaced persons.”

The falsification of history is clearly evident in the second paragraph, in the words shown in bold font, “b>when Israel launched a war against Jordan”. Some accuse Israel of attacking Egypt, on account of Israel’s preemptive strike, but nobody can accuse Israel of attacking Jordan. With this blatant falsification, the entire article loses all credibility.

Furthermore, as pointed out in Part 21 of the series “23 reasons to oppose the creation of a second Palestinian-Arab state in Yesha”, the figure quoted by the PMC is grossly exaggerated; more important still is the fact that it includes a large group of Arabs that migrated into the “Palestine” because of the favourable conditions created by the Jewish settlement. Some estimate that the actual number of “Palestinians” who lived for many generations in what became Israel is closer to 150,000 persons.

3. How many Palestinian refugees are there?

Today, the original Palestinian refugees and their descendents are estimated to number more than 6.5 million [4] and constitute the world’s oldest and largest refugee population, making up more than one-fourth of the entire refugee population in the world. [5] They include:

* 4 million 1948 refugees who are registered with the United Nations;
* 1.5 million 1948 refugees who are not registered by the United Nations either because they did not register or did not need assistance at the time they became refugees;
* 773,000 1967 displaced persons; and
* 263,000 internally displaced refugees (see question 5 below for more on the internally displaced).

These figures alone are sufficient to render the “Right of Return” demand an absurdity. Can Israel indeed grant such a right to 6.5 million of its sworn enemies? And what would become of Israel as the Jewish National Home if even one million “Palestinians” are allowed entry into Israel? Well, the PMC has a view about that too:

10. Doesn’t the right of return threaten Israel’s “Jewish character”?

The end of religious/ethnic discrimination with respect to the right of return threatens nothing other than discrimination itself. Allowing Christians and Muslims to return to their homes does not negate Jewish historical attachment to Israel nor does it deny the rights of Jews to immigrate to Israel. The right of return seeks only to address historic injustices and affirm the rights of the indigenous non-Jewish population.

And finally, the bottom line:

14. How can the 55-year plight of the Palestinian refugees be resolved?

There can be no comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without honoring the rights of Palestinian refugees. Palestinian refugees must be given the option to exercise their right of return, though refugees may prefer other options...

15. How was the issue of refugees addressed in negotiations with Israel?

At Camp David, Israel refused to discuss the issue of refugees, arguing that it bore no responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem or its solution. In December 2000, US President Clinton, through the “Clinton Parameters,” adopted the concept of choice but by excluding the most fundamental option of allowing refugees to choose to return to Israel, the Clinton Parameters effectively negated the legal rights of Palestinian refugees. At the Taba negotiations, Israel continued to press for an abandonment of the right of return. Palestinians should not be the first people in history forced to abandon their right of return.

Let us ignore the “first people” falsification (the Sudeten Germans have no right to return either); the point is that if according to the official line “there can be solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict” without the right of return, then the Roadmap is an exercise in futility and Sharon is absolutely right in demanding the abandonment of this claim as a pre-condition.